desire to do natural or moral good things but even spiritual 784 4o. he may leave many sins which he is commanded to forsake 785 5o. he may leave some sins not only for temporal interest but out of fear of God and regard to his Law ibid. 6o. he may besides abstinence from evil do many good things 786 7 o he may have received the Spirit of God and yet be in a state of distance from God ibid. 6. The character of the unregenerate state or person n. 42.787 7. What are properly and truly sins of infirmity and how far they can consist with the regenerate estate 789 8. Practical advices to be added to the foregoing considerations 795. n. 65. Chap. IX Of the effect of Repentance viz. remission of Sins 800 Sect. 1. There is no sin but with Repentance may be pardoned ibid. 2. Of pardon of sins committed after baptism 802 3. Of the difficulty of obtaining pardon The doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church in this Article 803 4. Of the sin against the H. Ghost and in what sence it may be unpardonable 808 5. What sin is spoken of by our Lord Matth. 12.32 and that final impenitence is not it 810 6. The former doctrines reduced to practice 815 Chap. X. Of Ecclesiastical Penance or the fruits of Repentance 820 Sect. 1. What the fruits of Repentance are in general ibid. 2. Of Contrition or godly sorrow the reasons measures and constitution of it 821 3. Of the nature and differences of Attrition and Contrition 828 4. Of Confession 830 1o. Confession is necessary to Repentance ibid. 2o. It is due only to God 831 3o. In the Primitive Church there was no judicial absolution used in their Liturgies n. 54.838 4o. The judicial absolution of a Priest does effect no material change in the Penitent as to giving of pardon 841. n. 60 5. Attrition or imperfect Repentance though with absolution is not sufficient 842 6. Of Penance or satisfactions 844. 1o. sorrow and mourning 2o. Corporal austerities 3o. Prayers 847. 4o. Alms 848. 5o. forgiving injuries 6 o restitution 849 7. The former doctrine reduced to practice 850 8. The practice of Confession 854 9. The practice of Penances and corporal austerities 858 A Discourse in Vindication of Gods Attributes of Goodness and Justice in the matter of Original Sin against the Calvinists way of understanding it 1o. THe truth of the Article with the errors and mistakes about it 869 2o. Arguments to prove the truth 872 3o. Objections answered 881 4o. An Explication of Rom. 5.12 ad 19. 887 An Answer to the Bishop of Rochesters First Letter written concerning the Sixth Chapter of Original Sin in the Discourse of Repentance 895 The Bishop of Rochesters Second Letter upon the same subject 907 An Answer to the Second Letter from the Bishop of Rochester 909 The Liberty of Prophesying EPist Dedicatory Introduction Sect. 1. Of the nature of Faith and that the duty of it is compleated in believing the Articles of the Apostles Creed 941 2. Of Heresie its nature and measures That it is to be accounted according to the stricter capacity of the Christian Faith and not in opinions speculative nor ever to pious persons 947 3. Of the difficulty and uncertainty of arguments from Scripture in Questions not simply necessary nor literally determined 965 4. Of the difficulty of expounding Scripture 971 5. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to expound Scripture or determine questions 976 6. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Councils Ecclesiastical to expound Scripture or determine questions 984 7. Of the fallibility of the Pope and the uncertainty of his expounding Scripture and resolving Questions 995 8. How unable the Fathers or Writers Ecclesiastical are to determine our questions with certainty and truth 1007 9. How incompetent the Church in its diffusive capacity is to be Judge of controversies and how impertinent that pretence of the Spirit is 1011 10. Of the authority of reason and that it proceeding on the best grounds is the best Judge 1013 11. Of some causes of error in the exercise of reason which are in themselves inculpable 1016 12. How innocent error of mere opinion is in a pious person 1022 13. Of the deportment to be used toward persons disagreeing and reasons why they are not to be punished with death 1025 14. Of the practice of Christian Churches toward persons disagreeing and when persecution first came in use 1031 15. How far the Church or Governours may act to the restraining false or differing opinions 1034 16. Whether it be lawful for a Prince to give toleration to several Religions 1036 17. Of complying with disagreeing persons or weak Consciences in general 1038 18. A particular instance in the opinion of the Anabaptists to shew that there is so much reason on both sides of the Question that a pious person mistaking may be innocent in his error 1040 1o. The arguments usually alledged for baptizing Infants n. 3. ad 12.1041 1042 2o. How much the Anabaptists have to say in opposition to those arguments and to justifie their own tenent n. 12. ad 34.1043 ad 1051 3o. A reply to the arguments of the Anabaptists by the Author since the first Edition wherein the lawfulness of the Churches practice is established n. 34. ad fin Sect. 1051. ad 1068 19. That there ought not to be any toleration of doctrines inconsistent with piety or the publick good 1069 20. How far the Religion of the Church of Rome may be tolerated 1070 21. Of the duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion 1076 22. That particular men may communicate with Churches of different perswasions and how far they may do it 1077 The Discourse of Confirmation INtroduction Sect. 1. Of the Divine Original Warranty and Institution of the Rite of Confirmation 3 2. The Rite of Confirmation is a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministery 12 3. That Confirmation which by laying on of Hands gives the H. Spirit was actually continued and practised by all succeeding Ages of the Primitive Church 15 4. The Bishops were always and are still the only Ministers of Confirmation 18 5. The whole procedure of Confirmation is by prayer and laying on of Hands 22 6. Many great Graces and Blessings are consequent to the worthy reception and due ministery of Confirmation 24 7. Of preparation to Confirmation and the circumstances of receiving it 28 A Discourse of Friendship 1. HOw far a perfect Friendship is authorized by the principles of Christianity 35 2. What are the requisites of Friendship 38 3. What are the lawful expressions and acts of Friendship 42 4. Whether a Friend may be dearer than a Husband or Wife 47 5. What are the duties of Friendship 49 6. Ten Rules to be observed in the conduct of Friendship 50 Five Letters about change of Religion 53 THE AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE APOLOGY FOR AUTHORIZED and SET FORMS OF LITURGY WHEN Judges were instead of Kings and Hophni and Phinehas were among the Priests every
matter of Faith or a Doctrine of the Church for if it had these had been Hereticks accounted and not have remain'd in the Communion of the Church But although for the reasonableness of the thing we have thought fit to take notice of it yet we shall have no need to make use of it since not only in the prime and purest Antiquity we are indubitably more than Conquerours but even in the succeeding Ages we have the advantage both numero pondere mensurâ in number weight and measure We do easily acknowledge that to dispute these Questions from the sayings of the Fathers is not the readiest way to make an end of them but therefore we do wholly rely upon Scriptures as the foundation and final resort of all our perswasions and from thence can never be confuted but we also admit the Fathers as admirable helps for the understanding of the Scriptures and as good testimony of the Doctrine deliver'd from their fore-fathers down to them of what the Church esteem'd the way of Salvation and therefore if we find any Doctrine now taught which was not plac'd in their way of Salvation we reject it as being no part of the Christian faith and which ought not to be impos'd upon Consciences They were wise unto salvation and fully instructed to every good work and therefore the Faith which they profess'd and deriv'd from Scripture we profess also and in the same Faith we hope to be sav'd even as they But for the new Doctors we understand them not we know them not Our Faith is the same from the beginning and cannot become new But because we shall make it to appear that they do greatly innovate in all their points of controversie with us and shew nothing but shadows instead of substances and little images of things instead of solid arguments we shall take from them their armour in which they trusted and chuse this sword of Goliah to combat their errors for non est alter talis It is not easie to find a better than the Word of God expounded by the prime and best Antiquity The first thing therefore we are to advertise is that the Emissaries of the Roman Church endeavour to perswade the good People of our Dioceses from a Religion that is truly Primitive and Apostolick and divert them to Propositions of their own new and unheard-of in the first Ages of the Christian Church For the Religion of our Church is therefore certainly Primitive and Apostolick because it teaches us to believe the whole Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and nothing else as matter of Faith and therefore unless there can be new Scriptures we can have no new matters of belief no new Articles of faith Whatsoever we cannot prove from thence we disclaim it as not deriving from the Fountains of our Saviour We also do believe the Apostles Creed the Nicene with the additions of Constantinople and that which is commonly called the Symbol of Saint Athanasius and the four first General Councils are so intirely admitted by us that they together with the plain words of Scripture are made the rule and measure of judging Heresies amongst us and in pursuance of these it is commanded by our Church that the Clergy shall never teach any thing as matter of Faith religiously to be observed but that which is agreeable to the Old and New Testament and collected out of the same Doctrine by the Ancient Fathers and Catholick Bishops of the Church This was undoubtedly the Faith of the Primitive Church they admitted all into their Communion that were of this Faith they condemned no Man that did not condemn these they gave Letters communicatory by no other cognisance and all were Brethren who spake this voice Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum Catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti reliquos verò dementes vesanosque judicantes haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere said the Emperours Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius in their Proclamation to the People of C. P. All that believ'd this Doctrine were Christians and Catholicks viz. all they who believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost one Divinity of equal Majesty in the Holy Trinity which indeed was the sum of what was decreed in explication of the Apostles Creed in the four first General Councils And what Faith can be the foundation of a more solid peace the surer ligaments of Catholick Communion or the firmer basis of a holy life and of the hopes of Heaven hereafter than the measures which the Holy Primitive Church did hold and we after them That which we rely upon is the same that the Primitive Church did acknowledge to be the adequate foundation of their hopes in the matters of belief The way which they thought sufficient to go to Heaven in is the way which we walk what they did not teach we do not publish and impose into this Faith intirely and into no other as they did theirs so we baptize our Catechumens The Discriminations of Heresie from Catholick Doctrine which they us'd we use also and we use no other and in short we believe all that Doctrine which the Church of Rome believes except those things which they have superinduc'd upon the Old Religion and in which we shall prove that they have innovated So that by their confession all the Doctrine which we teach the people as matter of Faith must be confessed to be Ancient Primitive and Apostolick or else theirs is not so for ours is the same and we both have received this Faith from the Fountains of Scripture and Universal Tradition not they from us or we from them but both of us from Christ and his Apostles And therefore there can be no question whether the Faith of the Church of England be Apostolick or Primitive it is so confessedly But the Question is concerning many other particulars which were unknown to the Holy Doctors of the first Ages which were no part of their faith which were never put into their Creeds which were not determin'd in any of the four first General Councils rever'd in all Christendom and entertain'd every where with great Religion and Veneration even next to the four Gospels and the Apostolical Writings Of this sort because the Church of Rome hath introduc'd many and hath adopted them into their late Creed and imposes them upon the People not only without but against the Scriptures and the Catholick Doctrine of the Church of God laying heavy burdens on mens Consciences and making the narrow way to Heaven yet narrower by their own inventions arrogating to themselves a dominion over our faith and prescribing a method of Salvation which Christ and his Apostles never taught corrupting the Faith of the Church of God and teaching for Doctrines the Commandements of Men and lastly having derogated from the Prerogative of Christ who alone is the Author and finisher of our Faith and hath perfected it in the revelations consign'd in the Holy Scriptures therefore it is that we
does implicitely believe all the Articles contained in it and then it is better the implication should still continue than that by any explication which is simply unnecessary the Church should be troubled with questions and uncertain determinations and factions enkindled and animosities set on foot and mens souls endangered who before were secured by the explicite belief of all that the Apostles required as necessary which belief also did secure them from all the rest because it implyed the belief of whatsoever was virtually in the first Articles if such belief should by chance be necessary 41. The summe of this Discourse is this if we take an estimate of the nature of Faith from the dictates and Promises Evangelical and from the Practice Apostolical the nature of Faith and its integrity consists in such propositions which make the foundation of hope and charity that which is sufficient to make us to doe honour to Christ and to obey him and to encourage us in both and this is compleated in the Apostles Creed And since contraries are of the same extent heresy is to be judged by its proportion and analogie to Faith and that is heresy only which is against Faith Now because Faith is not only a precept of Doctrines but of manners and holy life whatsoever is either opposite to an Article of Creed or teaches ill life that 's heresy but all those propositions which are extrinsecal to these two considerations be they true or be they false make not heresy nor the man an Heretick and therefore however he may be an erring person yet he is to be used accordingly pittied and instructed not condemned or Excommunicated And this is the result of the first ground the consideration of the nature of Faith and heresy SECT III. Of the difficulty and uncertainty of Arguments from Scripture in Questions not simply necessary not literally determined 1. GOD who disposes of all things sweetly and according to the nature and capacity of things and persons had made those only necessary which he had taken care should be sufficiently propounded to all persons of whom he required the explicite belief And therefore all the Articles of Faith are clearly and plainly set down in Scripture and the Gospel is not hid nisi pereuntibus saith S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Damascen and that so manifestly that no man can be ignorant of the foundation of Faith without his own apparent fault And this is acknowledged by all wise and good men and is evident besides the reasonableness of the thing in the testimonies of Saints Austin Hierom Chrysostome Fulgentius Hugo de Sancto Victore Thedoret Lactantius Theophilus Antiochenus Aquinas and the later School-men And God hath done more for many things which are only profitable are also set down so plainly that as S. Austin says nemo inde haurire non possit si modò ad hauriendum devotè ac piè accedat ubi supra de util cred c. 6. but of such things there is no Question commenced in Christendome and if there were it cannot but be a crime and humane interest that are the Authors of such disputes and therefore these cannot be simple errours but always heresies because the principle of them is a personal sin 2. But besides these things which are so plainly set down some for doctrine as Saint Paul says that is for Articles and foundation of Faith some for instruction some for reproof some for comfort that is in matters practical and speculative of several tempers and constitutions there are innumerable places containing in them great mysteries but yet either so enwrapped with a cloud or so darkned with umbrages or heightened with expressions or so covered with allegories and garments of Rhetorick so profound in the matter or so altered or made intricate in the manner in the cloathing and in the dressing that God may seem to have left them as tryals of our industry and Arguments of our imperfections and incentives to the longings after Heaven and the clearest revelations of eternity and as occasions and opportunities of our mutual charity and toleration to each other and humility in our selves rather than the repositories of Faith and furniture of Creeds and Articles of belief 3. For wherever the word of God is kept whether in Scripture alone or also in Tradition he that considers that the meaning of the one and the truth or certainty of the other are things of great Question will see a necessity in these things which are the subject matter of most of the Questions of Christendome that men should hope to be excused by an implicite faith in God Almighty For when there are in the Explications of Scripture so many Commentaries so many sences and Interpretations so many Volumes in all Ages and all like mens faces exactly none like another either this difference and inconvenience is absolutely no fault at all or if it be it is excusable by a mind prepared to consent in that truth which God intended And this I call an implicite Faith in God which is certainly of as great excellency as an implicite Faith in any man or company of men Because they who do require an implicite Faith in the Church for Articles less necessary and excuse the want of explicite Faith by the implicite do require an implicite Faith in the Church because they believe that God hath required of them to have a mind prepared to believe whatever the Church says which because it is a proposition of no absolute certainty whosoever does in readiness of mind believe all that God spake does also believe that sufficiently if it be fitting to be believed that is if it be true and if God hath said so for he hath the same obedience of understanding in this as in the other But because it is not so certain God hath tied him in all things to believe that which is called the Church and that it is certain we must believe God in all things and yet neither know all that either God hath revealed or the Church taught it is better to take the certain than the uncertain to believe God rather than men especially since if God hath bound us to believe men our absolute submission to God does involve that and there is no inconvenience in the world this way but that we implicitely believe one Article more viz. the Churches Authority or infallibility which may well be pardoned because it secures our belief of all the rest and we are sure if we believe all that God said explicitely or implicitely we also believe the Church implicitely in case we are bound to it but we are not certain that if we believe any company of men whom we call the Church that we therefore obey God and believe what he hath said But however if this will not help us there is no help for us but good fortune or absolute predestination for by choice and industry no man can
videantur said Vincent Lirinensis in which every man knows what innumerable ways there are of being mistaken God having in things not simply necessary left such a difficulty upon those parts of Scripture which are the subject matters of controversie ad edomandam labore superbiam intellectum à fastidio revocandum as S. Austin gives a reason that all that err honestly are therefore to be pitied and tolerated because it is or may be the condition of every man at one time or other 8. The sum is this Since holy Scripture is the repository of divine truths and the great rule of Faith to which all Sects of Christians do appeal for probation of their several opinions and since all agree in the Articles of the Creed as things clearly and plainly set down and as containing all that which is of simple and prime necessity and since on the other side there are in Scripture many other mysteries and matters of Question upon which there is a vail since there are so many Copies with infinite varieties of reading since a various Interpunction a parenthesis a letter an accent may much alter the sence since some places have divers literal sences many have spiritual mystical and Allegorical meanings since there are so many tropes metonymies ironies hyperboles proprieties and improprieties of language whose understanding depends upon such circumstances that it is almost impossible to know its proper interpretation now that the knowledge of such circumstances and particular stories is irrevocably lost since there are some mysteries which at the best advantage of expression are not easie to be apprehended and whose explication by reason of our imperfections must needs be dark sometimes weak sometimes unintelligible and lastly since those ordinary means of expounding Scripture as searching the Originals conference of places parity of reason and analogie of Faith are all dubious uncertain and very fallible he that is the wisest and by consequence the likeliest to expound truest in all probability of reason will be very far from confidence because every one of these and many more are like so many degrees of improbability and incertainty all depressing our certainty of finding out truth in such mysteries and amidst so many difficulties And therefore a wise man that considers this would not willingly be prescribed to by others and therefore if he also be a just man he will not impose upon others for it is best every man should be left in that liberty from which no man can justly take him unless he could secure him from errour So that here also there is a necessity to conserve the liberty of Prophesying and Interpreting Scripture a necessity derived from the consideration of the difficulty of Scripture in Questions controverted and the uncertainty of any internal medium of Interpretation SECT V. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to Expound Scripture or determine Questions 1. IN the next place we must consider those extrinsecal means of Interpreting Scripture and determining Questions which they most of all confide in that restrain Prophesying with the greatest Tyranny The first and principal is Tradition which is pretended not only to expound Scripture Necesse enim est propter tantos tam varii erroris anfractus ut Propheticae Apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus normam dirigatur But also to propound Articles upon a distinct stock such Articles whereof there is no mention and proposition in Scripture And in this topick not only the distinct Articles are clear and plain like as the fundamentals of Faith expressed in Scripture but also it pretends to expound Scripture and to determine Questions with so much clarity and certainty as there shall neither be errour nor doubt remaining and therefore no disagreeing is here to be endured And indeed it is most true if Tradition can perform these pretensions and teach us plainly and assure us infallibly of all truths which they require us to believe we can in this case have no reason to disbelieve them and therefore are certainly Hereticks if we doe because without a crime without some humane interest or collaterall design we cannot disbelieve traditive Doctrine or traditive Interpretation if it be infallibly proved to us that tradition is an infallible guide 2. But here I first consider that tradition is no repository of Articles of faith and therefore the not following it is no Argument of heresie for besides that I have shewed Scripture in its plain expresses to be an abundant rule of Faith and manners Tradition is a topick as fallible as any other so fallible that it cannot be sufficient evidence to any man in a matter of Faith or Question of heresie 3. For first I find that the Fathers were infinitely deceived in their account and enumeration of Traditions sometimes they did call some Traditions such not which they knew to be so but by Arguments and presumptions they concluded them so Such as was that of S. Austin ea quae universalis tenet Ecclesia nec à Conciliis instituta reperiuntur credibile est ab Apostolorum traditione descendisse Now suppose this rule probable that 's the most yet it is not certain It might come by custome whose Original was not known but yet could not derive from an Apostolical principle Now when they conclude of particular Traditions by a general rule and that general rule not certain but at the most probable in any thing and certainly false in some things it is wonder if the productions that is their judgments and pretence fail so often And if I should but instance in all the particulars in which Tradition was pretended falsely or uncertainly in the first Ages I should multiply them to a troublesome variety for it was then accounted so glorious a thing to have spoken with the persons of the Apostles that if any man could with any colour pretend to it he might abuse the whole Church and obtrude what he listed under the specious title of Apostolical Tradition and it is very notorious to every man that will but read and observe the Recognitions or stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus where there is enough of such false wares shewed in every book and pretended to be no less than from the Apostles In the first Age after the Apostles Papias pretended he received a Tradition from the Apostles that Christ before the day of Judgment should reign a thousand years upon Earth and his Saints with him in temporal felicities and this thing proceeding from so great an Authority as the testimony of Papias drew after it all or most of the Christians in the first three hundred years For besides that the Millenary opinion is expresly taught by Papias Justin Martyr Irenaeus Origen Lactantius Severus Victorinus Apollinaris Nepos and divers others famous in their time Justin Martyr in his Dialogue against Tryphon says it was the belief of all Christians exactly Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
would bring in after Ages to the Authority of a competent judge or witness say the same thing for they plainly confess that the first Ages spake little or nothing to the present Question or at least nothing to their sence of them for therefore they call in aid from the following Ages and make them suppletory and auxiliary to their designs and therefore there are no Traditions to our purposes And they who would willingly have it otherwise yet have taken no course it should be otherwise for they when they had opportunity in the Councils of the last Ages to determine what they had a mind to yet they never named the number nor expressed the particular Traditions which they would fain have the world believe to be Apostolical But they have kept the bridle in their own hands and made a reserve of their own power that if need be they may make new pretensions or not be put to it to justifie the old by the engagement of a conciliary declaration 11. Lastly We are acquitted by the testimony of the Primitive Fathers from any other necessity of believing than of such Articles as are recorded in Scripture And this is done by them whose Authority is pretended the greatest Argument for Tradition as appears largely in Irenaeus who disputes professedly for the sufficiency of Scripture against certain Hereticks who affirm some necessary truths not to be written It was an excellent saying of S. Basil and will never be wip'd out with all the eloquence of Perron in his Serm. de fide Manifestus est fidei lapsus liquidum superbiae viâ—ium vel respuere aliquid eorum quae Scriptura habet vel inducere quicquam quod scriptum non est And it is but a poor device to say that every particular Tradition is consigned in Scripture by those places which give Authority to Tradition and so the introducing of Tradition is not a super-inducing any thing over or besides Scripture because Tradition is like a Messenger and the Scripture is like his Letters of Credence and therefore Authorizes whatsoever Tradition speaketh For supposing Scripture does consign the Authority of Tradition which it might do before all the whole Instrument of Scripture it self was consigned and then afterwards there might be no need of Tradition yet supposing it it will follow that all those Traditions which are truly prime and Apostolical are to be entertained according to the intention of the Deliverers which indeed is so reasonable of it self that we need not Scripture to perswade us to it it self is authentick as Scripture is if it derives from the same fountain and a word is never the more the Word of God for being written nor the less for not being written but it will not follow that whatsoever is pretended to be Tradition is so neither is the credit of the particular instances consigned in Scripture dolosus versatur in generalibus but that this craft is too palpable And if a general and indefinite consignation of Tradition be sufficient to warrant every particular that pretends to be Tradition then S. Basil had spoken to no purpose by saying it is Pride and Apostasie from the Faith to bring in what is not written For if either any man brings in what is written or what he says is delivered then the first being express Scripture and the second being consigned in Scripture no man can be charged with superinducing what is not written he hath his answer ready And then these are zealous words absolutely to no purpose but if such general consignation does not warrant every thing that pretends to Tradition but only such as are truly proved to be Apostolical then Scripture is useless as to this particular for such Tradition gives testimony to Scripture and therefore is of it self first and more credible for it is credible of it self and therefore unless Saint Basil thought that all the will of God in matters of Faith and Doctrine were written I see not what end nor what sence he could have in these words For no man in the World except Enthusiasts and mad-men ever obtruded a Doctrine upon the Church but he pretended Scripture for it or Tradition and therefore no man could be pressed by these words no man confuted no man instructed no not Enthusiasts or Montanists For suppose either of them should say that since in Scripture the holy Ghost is promised to abide with the Church for ever to teach whatever they pretend the Spirit in any Age hath taught them is not to super-induce any thing beyond what is written because the truth of the Spirit his veracity and his perpetual teaching being promised and attested in Scripture Scripture hath just so consigned all such Revelations as Perron saith it hath all such Traditions But I will trouble my self no more with Arguments from any humane Authorities but he that is surprized with the belief of such Authorities and will but consider the very many testimonies of Antiquity to this purpose as of Constantine St. Hierom St. Austin St. Athanasius St. Hilary St. Epiphanius and divers others all speaking words to the same sence with that saying of St. Paul Nemo sentiat super quod scriptum est will see that there is reason that since no man is materially a Heretick but he that errs in a point of Faith and all Faith is sufficiently recorded in Scripture the judgment of Faith and Heresie is to be derived from thence and no man is to be condemned for dissenting in an Article for whose probation Tradition only is pretended only according to the degree of its evidence let every one determine himself but of this evidence we must not judge for others for unless it be in things of Faith and absolute certainties evidence is a word of relation and so supposes two terms the object and the faculty and it is an imperfect speech to say a thing is evident in it self unless we speak of first principles or clearest revelations for that may be evident to one that is not so to another by reason of the pregnancy of some apprehensions and the immaturity of others This discourse hath its intention in Traditions Doctrinal and Ritual that is such Traditions which propose Articles new in materiâ but now if Scripture be the repository of all Divine Truths sufficient for us Tradition must be considered as its instrument to convey its great mysteriousness to our understandings it is said there are traditive Interpretations as well as traditive propositions but these have not much distinct consideration in them both because their uncertainty is as great as the other upon the former considerations as also because in very deed there are no such things as traditive Interpretations universal For as for particulars they signifie no more but that they are not sufficient determinations of Questions Theological therefore because they are particular contingent and of infinite variety and they are no more Argument than the
Scripture both for the confirmation of good things and also for the reproof of the evil S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. 12. Illuminat saith Attend not to my inventions for you may possibly be deceiv'd but trust no word unless thou dost learn it from the Divine Scriptures and in Catech. 4. Illum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For it behoves us not to deliver so much as the least thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine and holy mysteries of Faith without the Divine Scriptures nor to be moved with probable discourses Neither give credit to me speaking unless what is spoken be demonstrated by the Holy Scriptures For that is the security of our Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is derived not from witty inventions but from the demonstration of Divine Scriptures Omne quod loquimur debemus affirmare de Scripturis Sanctis so S. Hierom in Psal. 89. And again Hoc quia de Scripturis authoritatem non habet eâdem facilitate contemnitur quâ probatur in Matth. 23. Si quid dicitur absque Scripturâ auditorum cogitatio claudicat So S. Chrysostom in Psal. 95. Homil. Theodoret Dial. 1. cap. 6. brings in the Orthodox Christian saying to Eranistes Bring not to me your Logismes and Syllogismes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I rely only upon Scriptures I could reckon very very many more both elder and later and if there be any Universal Tradition consigned to us by the Universal Testimony of Antiquity it is this that the Scriptures are a perfect repository of all the Will of God of all the Faith of Christ and this I will engage my self to make very apparent to you and certain against any opposer Upon the supposition of which it follows that whatever the Church of Rome obtrudes as necessary to Salvation and an Article of Faith that is not in Scripture is an Innovation in matter of Faith and a Tyranny over Consciences which whosoever submits to prevaricates the rule of the Apostle commanding us that we stand fast in the liberty with which Christ hath set us free To the other Question Whether an Ecclesiastical Tradition be of equal authority with Divine I answer Negatively And I believe I shall have no adversary in it except peradventure some of the Jesuited Bigots An Ecclesiastical Tradition viz. a positive constitution of the Church delivered from hand to hand is in the power of the Church to alter but a Divine is not Ecclesiastical Traditions in matters of Faith there are none but what are also Divine as for Rituals Ecclesiastical descending by Tradition they are confessedly alterable but till they be altered by abrogation or desuetude or contrary custom or a contrary reason or the like they do oblige by vertue of that Authority whatsoever it is that hath power over you I know not what Mr. G. did say but I am confident they who reported it of him were mistaken He could not say or mean what is charged upon him I have but two things more to speak to One is you desire me to recite what else might impede your compliance with the Roman Church I answer Truth and Piety hinder you For you must profess the belief of many false propositions and certainly believe many Uncertain things and be uncharitable to all the world but your own party and make Christianity a faction and you must yield your reason a servant to man and you must plainly prevaricate an institution of Christ and you must make an apparent departure from the Church in which you received your Baptism and the Spirit of God if you go over to Rome But Sir I refer you to the two Letters I have lately published at the end of my Discourse of Friendship and I desire you to read my Treatise of the Real Presence and if you can believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation you can put off your reason and your sense and your religion and all the instruments of Credibility when you please and these are not little things In these you may perish an error in these things is practical but our way is safe as being upon the defence and intirely resting upon Scripture and the Apostolical Churches The other thing I am to speak to is the report you have heard of my inclinations to go over to Rome Sir that party which needs such lying stories for the support of their Cause proclaim their Cause to be very weak or themselves to be very evil Advocates Sir be confident they dare not tempt me to do so and it is not the first time they have endeavoured to serve their ends by saying such things of me But I bless God for it it is perfectly a Slander and it shall I hope for ever prove so Sir if I may speak with you I shall say very many things more for your confirmation Pray to God to guide you and make no change suddenly For if their way be true to day it will be so to morrow and you need not make haste to undo your self Sir I wish you a setled mind and a holy Conscience and that I could serve you in the capacity of Your very Loving Friend and Servant in our Blessed Lord JER TAYLOR Munday Jan. 11. 1657. THE SECOND LETTER SIR I Perceive that you are very much troubled and I see also that you are in great danger but that also troubles me because I see they are little things and very weak and fallacious that move you You propound many things in your Letter in the same disorder as they are in your Conscience to all which I can best give answers when I speak with you to which because you desire I invite you and promise you a hearty endeavour to give you satisfaction in all your material inquiries Sir I desire you to make no haste to change in case you be so miserable as to have it in your thoughts for to go over to the Church of Rome is like death there is no recovery from thence without a Miracle because Unwary souls such are they who change from us to them are with all the arts of wit and violence strangely entangled and ensur'd when they once get the prey Sir I thank you for the Paper you inclosed The men are at a loss they would fain say something against that Book but know not what Sir I will endeavour if you come to me to restore you to peace and quiet and if I cannot effect it yet I will pray for it and I am sure God can To his Mercy I commend you and rest Your very affectionate Friend in our Blessed Lord JER TAYLOR Febr. 1. 1657 8. THE THIRD LETTER SIR THE first Letter which you mention in this latter of the 10 th of March I received not I had not else failed to give you an answer I was so wholly unknowing of it that I did not understand your Servant's meaning when he came to require an answer But to your Question which you now propound I answer
explained 777 n. 26. Chap. 8.7 explained 781 n. 31. Chap. 7.22 23. explained 781 n. 31. Chap. 5.10 explained 818 n. 77. Rosary What it is 328. S. Sabbath THE observation of the Lord's day relieth not upon Tradition 428. The Jewish and Christian Sabbath were for many years in the Christian Church kept together 428. Sacraments The Sacraments as the Romanists teach do not onely convey Grace but supply the defect of it 337. The Romanists cannot agree about the definition of a Sacrament 404. They impute greater virtue to their Sacramentals then to the Sacraments themselves 429. The Church of God used of old to deny the Sacrament to no dying penitent that desired it 696. Of Confession to a Priest in preparation to the Sacrament 857. Saints The Romanists teach and practise the Invocation of Saints 329 332. and that with the same confidence and in the same style as they do to God ibid. They do not onely pray to Saints to pray for them but they relie upon their merits 330. They have a Saint for every malady 330. It is held ominous for a Pope to canonize a Saint 333 c. 2. § 9. Of the Invocation of Saints 467. Salvation The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to Salvation 436. What Articles the Scripture proposeth as necessary to Salvation 436 437. The Church of Rome imposeth Articles of her own devising as necessary to Salvation 461. Of the Salvation of unbaptized Infants that are born of Christian parents 471. 1. Book of Samuel Chap. 2. v. 25. explained 812 813 n. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it meaneth in the style of the New Testament 724 n. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 767 781. Satisfaction One may according to the Roman doctrine satisfie for another man's sin 322 c. 2. § 6. The use of that word in Classical Authours 844 845 n. 72. It was the same with Confession 845 n. 72. What it signified in the sense of the Ancients 844 and 832 n. 34. The Ancients did not believe Satisfaction simply necessary to the procuring pardon from God 847. Schism Photius was the first Authour of the Schism between the Greek and Latin Church 109 § 33. What Schism is 149 § 46. The whole stress of Religion Schismaticks commonly place in their own distinguishing Article 459. Scripture To make new Articles of Faith that are not in Scripture as the Papists do is condemned by the suffrage of the Fathers Pref. to Diss. pag. 4 5. Christ and his Apostles made use of Scripture for arguments and not Tradition 353. An answer to that Objection Scripture proves not it self to be God's Word 353. An answer to that Objection Tradition is the best Argument to prove the Scripture to be the Word of God therefore it is a better Principle 354. The Romanists hold the Scripture for no Infallible Rule 381. Whether the Scripture be a sufficient Rule 405 406 407. In what case the Scripture can give testimony concerning it self 406. Scripture is more credible then the Church 407. To believe that the Scripture contains not all things necessary to Salvation is a fountain of most Errours and Heresies 409. The doctrine of the Scripture's sufficiency proved by Tradition 410. Some of the Fathers by Tradition mean Scripture 410 411 412. Things necessary to Salvation are in the Scripture easie and plain 418. Scripture is the best Interpreter of Scripture 419. Tradition is necessary because Scripture could not be conveyed to us without it 424. The Questions that arose in the Nicene Council were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. The Romanists by their doctrine of Tradition give great advantage to the Socinians 425. That the Doctrine of the Trinity relieth not upon Tradition but Scripture 425. That the Doctrine of Infant-baptism relieth not upon Tradition onely but Scripture 425 426. The validity of the Baptism of Hereticks is not to be proved by Tradition without Scripture 426 427. The procession of the Holy Ghost may be proved by Scripture without Tradition 427 428. What Articles the Scripture proposeth as necessary to Salvation 436 437. The Romanists teach that the Pope can make new Articles of Faith and a new Scripture 450. The Authority of the Church of Rome as they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. When in the Question between the Church and the Scripture they distinguish between Authority quoad nos and in se it salves not the difficulty 451. The Romanists reckon the Decretal Epistles of Popes among the Holy Scriptures 451. Eckius his pitiful Argument to prove the Authority of the Church to be above the Scriptures ibid. Variety of Readings in it 967. n. 4. As much difference in expounding it 967 n. 5. Of the several ways taken to expound it 971 972 973. Of expounding it by Analogy of Faith 973 974 n. 4. Saint Basil's testimony for Scripture against Tradition which Perron endeavours to elude vindicated 982 983. Nothing of Auricular Confession in Scripture 479. The manner of it is to include the Consequents in the Antecedent 679 n. 52. Secular Whether this Power can give Prohibitions against the Ecclesiastical 122 § 36. It was not unlawful for Bishops to take Secular Imployment 157 § 49. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after Secular imployments 157 § 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends 158 § 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it in gradu impedimenti 159 § 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold cares as secular imployment 160 § 49. Christian Emperours allowed Appeals in secular affairs from secular Tribunals to that of the Bishop 160 § 49. Saint Ambrose was Bishop and Prefect of Milain at the same time 161 § 49. Saint Austin's condition was somewhat like at Hippo 161. § 49. Bishops used in the Primitive Church to be Embassadours for their Princes 161 § 49. The Bishop or his Clerks might doe any office of Piety though of secular burthen 161 § 49. If a Secular Prince give a safe conduct the Romanists teach it binds not the Bishops that are under him 341. Sense If the doctrine of Transubstantiation be true then the truth of Christian Religion that relies upon evidence of sense is questionable 223 224 § 10. The Papists Answer to that Argument and our Reply 224 § 10. Bellarmine's Answer and our Reply upon it 226 § 10. If the testimony of our Senses be not in fit circumstances to be relied on the Catholicks could not have confuted the Valentinians and Marcionites 227 § 10. The Touch the most certain of the Senses ibid. Signat That word as also Consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifies Baptismal Unction 110 § 33. Vid. 20. b. Sin Venial sins hinder the fruit of Indulgences 320. The Papists teach the habit of the sin is not a distinct evil from the act of it 322. Of the distinction of sins mortal and venial 329 c.
Disswasive from Popery The First Part. THE Introduction 285 Chap. I. The doctrine of the Roman Church in the controverted Articles is neither Catholick Apostolick nor Primitive 286 Sect. 1. That our Religion is but that their Religion is not such is proved in general first from their challenging power of making new Articles and secondly from the practice of their Indices Expurgatory with some instances of their Innovating 286 2. They Innovate in pretending power to make new Articles 290 3. They did Innovate in their doctrine of Indulgences 291 4. In their doctrine and practice about Purgatory 294 5. In their doctrine of Transubstantiation 297 6. They Innovate in their doctrine of the Half-Communion 30◠7. In that they suffer not their publick Prayers to be in a language vulgarly understood 303 8. In requiring the adoration of Images 305 9. In picturing God the Father and the Bl. Trinity 307 10. In arrogating to the Pope an universal Bishoprick 308 11. A Miscellany of many other doctrines and practices wherein that Church has Innovated Chap. II. They maintain Doctrines and Practices in opposition to us that are direct impieties and certainly destroy good life 312 Sect. 1. Such is their doctrine of Repentance 312 2. And Confession 315 3. Of Penances and Satisfactions 316 4 5. Their doctrine about Pardon and Indulgences Contrition and Satisfaction 318 6. Satisfaction and habitual sins distinction of Mortal and Venial sins by which they contract their Repentance and their Sins and mistake in cases of Conscience 322 7. Their teaching now of late that a probable opinion for which the authority of one Doctor is sufficient may in practice be safely followed 324 8. That Prayers are accepted by God ex opere operato 327 9. Such is their practice of Invocating dead Saints as Deliverers 329 10. And of Exorcising possessed persons 333 11. Sacramentals such as Holy-water Paschal-wax Agnus Dei c. 336 12. The worship of Images is Idolatry and to worship the Host. 337 13. The Summ and Conclusion of the whole Chapter 337 Chap. III. Their Docrines are such as destroy Christian Society in general and Monarchy in particular 340 Sect. 1. As equivocation mental reservation taught and defended by them c. 340 Their teaching that faith is not to be kept with Hereticks dispensing with Oaths Dissolving the bonds of duty 341 They teach the Pope has power to dispense with all the Laws of God and to dissolve contracts 2. Their Exemption of the Clergie from the secular authority as to their Estates and Persons even in matters of Theft Murder and Treason c. and the divine right of the seal of Confession 343 3. By subjecting all Christian Kings to the Pope who can as they teach depose and excommunicate Kings and that Subjects are bound to expel Heretical Kings The Second Part of the Disswasive THe Introduction containing an answer to the Fourth Appendix of J. S. his Sure-footing 351 Lib. I. Sect. 1. Of the Church that the Church of Rome relies upon no certain foundation for their Faith Of Councils and their authority the Canon Law and the great contrariety in it Of the Pope of the notes of the Church 381 2. Of the sufficiency of H. Scripture to Salvation which is the foundation and ground of the Protestant Religion The sufficiency of Scripture proved by Tradition 405 3. Of Traditions and those doctrines and practices that most need the help of that Topick as of the Trinity Paedo-Baptism Baptism by Hereticks and the Lords day 420 4. There is nothing of necessity to be believed which the Apostolical Churches did not believe 436 5. That the Church of Rome pretends to a power of introducing into the Confession of the Church new Articles of Faith and endeavours to alter and suppress the old Catholick doctrine 446 First They do it and pretend to a power of doing it Secondly That it agrees with their interest so to do 452 6. They use indirect ways to bring their new Articles into credit e. g. the device of Indices Expurgatorii 454 First That the King of Spain gave a Commission to the Inquisitors to purge Catholick Authors Secondly That they purged the very Indices of the Father's works Thirdly They did purge the Writings of the Fathers too 7. While they enlarge the Faith they destroy Charity 459 8. The insecurity of the Roman Religion 466 9. That the Church of Rome does teach for doctrines the commandments of men 471 10. Of the Seal of Confession the First Instance 473 11. The Second Instance is the imposing Auricular Confession upon Consciences as a Commandment of God 477 First For which there is no ground in holy Scripture 479 Secondly Nor in Ecclesiastical Tradition either of the Latin or Greek Church 491 Lib. II. Sect. 1. Of Indulgences and Pilgrimages 495 2. Of Purgatory The testimonies of Roffensis Polyd. Virgil c. Alphonsus à Castro are vindicated 500 It is proved that Purgatory is not a consequent to the doctrine of Prayer for the dead 501 The Fathers made Prayers for those whom they believed not to be in Purgatory 502 And such Prayers are in the Roman Missal 505. The Greek and Latin Fathers teach that no Soul enters Heaven till the day of Judgment The doctrine of Purgatory was no Article in S. Austin's time 506. It was not owned by the Greek Fathers 510. It is directly contrary to the ancient Fathers of the Latin Church 512 3. Of Transubstantiation wherein the authorities out of Scotus Odo Cameracensis Roffensis Biel Alph. à Castro Pet. Lombard Durandus Justine Martyr Eusebius S. Augustine are justified from the exceptions of the Adversaries And it is proved that the Council of Laterane did not determine the Article of Transubstantiation but brake up abruptly without making any Canons at all 516 4. Of the Half-Communion 528 Of the Decree of the Council of Constance 528. The authority of S. Ambrose 530. and S. Cyprian 531 5. Of the Scriptures and Service in an unknown tongue 532 S. Basils authority S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Austin Aquinas Lyra. 6. Of the Worship of Images 535 1o. The Quotations vindicated 536. of S. Cyril Chrysostom Epiphanius Austin Council of Eliberis Nicene II. Francfort First The Council of Francfort condemned the Nicene II. 540 Secondly They commanded that it should not be called a General Council ibid. Thirdly The acts of it are in the Capitular of the Emperor written in the time of the Synod 541 Of Tertullian 541. Clemens Alexandrinus 542. Origen 543. 2o. The Quotations alledged by them answered as of S. Basil S. Athanasius 544. S. Chrysostom 545. 3o. The truth confirmed 545 First Image-worship came from Simon Magus ibid. Secondly Heathens spake against it 546 Thirdly Christians did abominate it ibid. Fourthly The Heathens never charged the Christians with it ibid. Fifthly The Primitive Fathers never taught those distinctions that the Papists use to discern lawful Idolatry from Heathen Idolatry 547 Sixthly The Second Commandment is against it ibid.
called of Adam bone of his bone and the rods changed into serpents are still called rods or else because it sometimes was bread therefore so it is called after just as we say The blind see the lame walk the harlots enter into the kingdome of heaven Which answer although Bellarmine mislikes yet lest any others should be pleased with it I have this certain confutation of it that by the Roman Doctrine the bread is wholly annihilated and nothing of the bread becomes any thing of the holy body and the holy body never was bread not so much as the matter of bread remaining in the change It cannot therefore be called bread unless it be bread at least not for this reason For if the body of Christ be not bread then neither ever was it bread neither was it made of bread and therefore these cannot be the reasons because they are not true But in the instances alledged the denomination still remains because the change was made in the same remaining matter or in the same person or they were to be so again as they were before nothing of which can be affirmed of the Eucharist by their doctrine therefore these instances are not pertinent 2. Others answer that the holy Body is called Bread because it seems to be so just as the effigies and forms of Pomegranates of Bulls of Serpents of Cherubims are called by the names of those creatures whom they do resemble I reply that well they may because there is there no danger of being deceived by such appellations no man will suppose them other than the pictures and so to speak is usual and common But in the matter of the holy Eucharist it ought not to be called bread for the likeness to bread unless it were bread indeed because such likeness and such appellation are both of them a temptation against that which these men call an article of faith but rather because it is like bread and all the world are apt to take it for such it ought to have been described with caution and affirmed to be Christ and God and not to be bread though it seem so But when it is often called Bread in Scripture which name the Church of Rome does not at all use in the mystery and is never called in Scripture the Son of God or God or Christ which words the Church of Rome does often use in the mystery it is certain that it is called bread not because it is like bread but because it is so indeed * And indeed upon such an answer as this it is easie to affirm an apple to be a Pigeon and no apple for if it be urged that all the world calls it an apple it may be replyed then as now It is true they call it an apple because it is like an apple but indeed it is a Pigeon 3. Some of them say when it is called bread it is not meant that particular kind of nourishment but in general it means any food and so only represents Christs body as a celestial divine thing intended some way to be our food Just as in S. John 6. Christ is called the bread that came down from heaven not meaning material bread but divine nourishment But this is the weakest of all because this which is called bread is broken is eaten hath the accidents of bread and all the signs of his proper nature and it were a strange violence that it should here signify any manner of food to which it is not like and not signify that to which it is so like * Besides this bread here signifies as wine or chalice does in the following words now that did signifie the fruit of the Vine that special manner of drink Christ himself being the Interpreter and therefore so must this mean that special manner of food 9. Sixthly If after the blessing the bread doth not remain but as they affirm be wholly annihilated then by blessing God destroys a creature which indeed is a strange kind of blessing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When God blesses he confirms his words with deeds and gives all sorts of good to that which he blesses And certain it is that although blessing can change it it must yet change it to the better and so we affirm he does for the bread besides the natural being by being blessed becomes the body of Christ in a sacramental manner but then it must remain bread still or else it receives not that increase and change but if it be annihilated and becomes nothing it is not Christs body in any sence nor in any sence can pretend to be blessed To which add the words of S. Austin Ille ad quem non esse non pertinet non est causa deficiendi id est tendendi ad non esse He that is the fountain of all being is not the cause of not being much less can his blessing cause any thing not to be It follows therefore that by blessing the bread becomes better but therefore it still remains 10. Seventhly That it is bread of which Christ affirmed This is my body and that it is bread after consecration was the doctrine of the Fathers in the Primitive Church I begin with the words of a whole Council of Fathers In Trullo at Constantinople decreeing thus against the Aquarii In Sanctis nihil plus quà m corpus Christi offeratur ut ipse dominus tradidit hoc est panis vinúm aquâ mixtum In the holy places or offices let nothing more be offered but the body of Christ as the Lord himself delivered that is bread and wine mingled with water So Justin Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are taught that the food made eucharistical the food which by change nourishes our flesh and bloud is the flesh and bloud of Jesus incarnate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we do not receive it as common bread No for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is made Sacramental and Eucharistical and so it is sublimed to become the body of Christ. But it is natural food still and that for two reasons 1. Because still he calls it bread not common bread but extraordinary yet bread still Card. Perron says it follows not to say it is not common bread therefore it is bread so as of those which appeared as men to Abraham we might say they were not common men but it follows not that they were men at all So the Holy Ghost descending like a Dove upon the blessed Jesus was no common Dove and yet it follows not it was a Dove at all I reply to this that of whatsoever you can say it is extraordinary in his kind of that you may also affirm it to be of that kind as concerning the richest scarlet if you say this is no ordinary colour you suppose it to be a colour so the Corinthian brass was no common brass and the Colossus was no common Statue and Christmas day is 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
were press'd in the Council of Florence by Pope Eugenius and by their necessity how unwillingly they consented how ambiguously they answered how they protested against having that half-consent put into the Instrument of Union how they were yet constrain'd to it by their Chiefs being obnoxious to the Pope how a while after they dissolv'd that Union and to this day refuse to own this Doctrine are things so notoriously known that they need no further declaration We add this only to make the conviction more manifest We have thought fit to annex some few but very clear testimonies of Antiquity expresly destroying the new Doctrine of Purgatory Saint Cyprian saith Quando istinc excessum fuerit nullus jam locus poenitentiae est nullus satisfactionis effectus When we are gone from hence there is no place left for repentance and no effect of satisfaction Saint Dionysius call the extremity of death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The end of all our Agonies and affirms That the Holy men of God rest in joy and in never-failing hopes and are come to the end of their holy combates Saint Justin Martyr affirms That when the soul is departed from the body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presently there is a separation made of the just and unjust The unjust are by Angels born into places which they have deserv'd but the souls of the just into Paradise where they have the conversation of Angels and Archangels Saint Ambrose saith That Death is a Haven of rest and makes not our condition worse but according as it finds every man so it reserves him to the judgment that is to come The same is affirmed by Saint Hilary c Saint Macarius and divers others they speak but of two states after death of the just and the unjust These are plac'd in horrible Regions reserv'd to the judgment of the great day the other have their souls carried by Quires of Angels into places of Rest. Saint Gregory Nazianzen expresly affirms That after this life there is no purgation For after Christ's ascension into Heaven the souls of all Saints are with Christ saith Gennadius and going from the body they go to Christ expecting the resurrection of their body with it to pass into the perfection of perpetual bliss and this he delivers as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church In what place soever a man is taken at his death of light or darkness of wickedness or vertue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same order and in the same degree either in light with the just and with Christ the great King or in darkness with the unjust and with the Prince of Darkness said Olympiodorus And lastly we recite the words of Saint Leo one of the Popes of Rome speaking of the Penitents who had not perform'd all their penances But if any one of them for whom we pray unto the Lord being interrupted by any obstacles falls from the gift of the present Indulgence viz. of Ecclesiastical Absolution and before he arrive at the appointed remedies that is before he hath perform'd his penances or satisfactions ends his temporal life that which remaining in the body he hath not receiv'd when he is devested of his body he cannot obtain He knew not of the new devices of paying in Purgatory what they paid not here and of being cleansed there who were not clean here And how these words or any of the precedent are reconcileable with the Doctrines of Purgatory hath not yet entred into our imagination To conclude this particular We complain greatly that this Doctrine which in all the parts of it is uncertain and in the late additions to it in Rome is certainly false is yet with all the faults of it passed into an Article of Faith by the Council of Trent But besides what hath been said it will be more than sufficient to oppose against it these clearest words of Scripture Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth even so saith the Spirit that they may rest from their labours If all the dead that die in Christ be at rest and are in no more affliction or labours then the Doctrine of the horrible pains of Purgatory is as false as it is uncomfortable To these words we add the saying of Christ and we rely upon it He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath eternal life and cometh not into judgment but passeth from death unto life If so then not into the judgment of Purgatory If the servant of Christ passeth from death to life then not from death to the terminable pains of a part of Hell They that have eternal life suffer no intermedial punishment judgment or condemnation after death for death and life are the whole progression according to the Doctrine of Christ and Him we chuse to follow SECT V. THE Doctrine of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the very time it began to be own'd publickly for an Opinion and the very Council in which it was said to be passed into a publick Doctrine and by what arts it was promoted and by what persons it was introduc'd For all the world knows that by their own parties by Scotus Ocham Biel Fisher Bishop of Rochester and divers others whom Bellarmine calls most learned and most acute men it was declared that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible that in the Scriptures there is no place so express as without the Churches Declaration to compel us to admit of Transubstantiation and therefore at least it is to be suspected of novelty But further we know it was but a disputable Question in the ninth and tenth Ages after Christ that it was not pretended to be an Article of Faith till the Lateran Council in the time of Pope Innocent the Third one thousand two hundred years and more after Christ that since that pretended determination divers of the chiefest Teachers of their own side have been no more satisfied of the ground of it than they were before but still have publickly affirm'd that the Article is not express'd in Scripture particularly Johannes de Bassolis Cardinal Cajetan and Melchior Canus besides those above reckon'd And therefore if it was not express'd in Scripture it will be too clear that they made their Articles of their own heads for they could not declare it to be there if it was not and if it was there but obscurely then it ought to be taught accordingly and at most it could be but a probable Doctrine and not certain as an Article of Faith But that we may put it past argument and probability it is certain that as the Doctrine was not taught in Scripture expresly so it was not at all taught as a Catholick Doctrine or an Article of the Faith by the Primitive Ages of the Church Now for this we need no proof
and before the day of Judgment any souls are translated into a state of bliss out of a state of pain that is that from Purgatory they go to heaven before the day of Judgment He that can shew this will teach me what I have not yet learned but he that cannot shew it must not pretend that the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory was ever known to the Ancient Fathers of the Church SECT III. Of Transubstantiation THE purpose of the Dissuasive was to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be new neither Catholick nor Apostolick In order to which I thought nothing more likely to perswade or dissuade than the testimonies of the parties against themselves And although I have many other inducements as will appear in the sequel yet by so earnestly contending to invalidate the truth of the quotations the Adversaries do confess by implication if these sayings be as is pretended then I have evinc'd my main point viz. that the Roman doctrines as differing from us are novelties and no parts of the Catholick faith Thus therefore the Author of the letter begins He quotes Scotus as declaring the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible which he saith not To the same purpose he quotes Ocham but I can find no such thing in him To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis but he hath no such thing But in order to the verification of what I said I desire it be first observ'd what I did say for I did not deliver it so crudely as this Gentleman sets it down For 1. These words the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible are not the words of all them before nam'd they are the sence of them all but the words but of one or two of them 2. When I say that some of the Roman Writers say that Transubstantiation is not express'd in the Scripture I mean and so I said plainly as without the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of it Now then for the quotations themselves I hope I shall give a fair account 1. The words quoted are the words of Biel when he had first affirmed that Christs body is contained truly under the bread and that it is taken by the faithful all which we believe and teach in the Church of England he adds Tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum that is the way of Transubstantiation an sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi 〈◊〉 pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canâ—ne Biblii and that 's the way of Consubstantiation so that here is expresly taught what I affirm'd was taught that the Scriptures did not express the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and he adds that concerning this there were Anciently divers opinions Thus far the quotation is right But of this man there is no notice taken But what of Scotus He saith no such thing well suppose that yet I hope this Gentleman will excuse me for Bellarmines sake who says the same thing of Scotus as I do and he might have found it in the Margent against the quotation of Scotus if he had pleas'd His words are these Secondly he saith viz. Scotus that there is not extant any place of Scripture so express without the declaration of the Church that it can compel us to admit of Transubstantiation And this is not altogether improbable For though the Scriptures which we brought above seem so clear to us that it may compel a man that is not wilful yet whether it be so or no it may worthily be doubted since most learned and acute men such as Scotus eminently was believe the contrary Well! But the Gentleman can find no such thing in Ocham I hope he did not look far for Ocham is not the man I mean however the Printer might have mistaken but it is easily pardonable because from O. Cam. meaning Odo Cameracensis it was easie for the Printer or transcriber to write Ocam as being of more publick name But the Bishop of Cambray is the man that followed Scotus in this opinion and is acknowledged by Bellarmine to have said the same that Scotus did he being one of his docti acutissimi viri there mentioned Now if Roffensis have the same thing too this Author of the Letter will have cause enough to be a little ashamed And for this I shall bring his words speaking of the whole institution of the Blessed Sacrament by our blessed Saviour he says Neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fierâ— carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam I suppose I need to say no more to verifie these citations but yet I have another very good witness to prove that I have said true and that is Salmeron who says that Scotus out of Innocentius reckons three opinions not of hereticks but of such men who all agreed in that which is the main but he adds Some men and writers believe that this article cannot be proved against a heretick by Scripture alone or reasons alone And so Cajetan is affirm'd by Suarez and Alanus to have said and Melchior Canus perpetuam Mariae virginitatem conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi non ita expressa in libris Canonicis invenies sed adeo tamen certa in â—ide sunt ut contrariorum dogmatum authores Ecclesia haereticos judicarit So that the Scripture is given up for no sure friend in this Q. the Article wholly relies upon the authority of the Church viz. of Rome who makes faith and makes heresies as she please But to the same purpose is that also which Chedzy said in his disputation at Oxford In what manner Christ is there whether with the bread Transelemented or Transubstantiation the Scripture in open words tells not But I am not likely so to escape for E. W. talks of a famous or rather infamous quotation out of Peter Lombard and adds foul and uncivil words which I pass by but the thing is this that I said Petrus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no. I did say so and I brought the very words of Lombard to prove it and these very words E. W. himself acknowledges Si autem quaeritur qualis sit ista conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio I am not able to define or determine whether that change be formal or substantial So far E. W. quotes him but leaves out one thing very material viz. whether besides formal or substantial it be of another kind Now E. W. not being able to deny that Lombard said this takes a great deal of useless pains not one word of all that he says being to the purpose or able to make it probable that Peter Lombard did not say so or that he did not think so
Article of Transubstantiation All those words are true in a very good sence and they are in that sence believ'd in the Church of England but that the bread is no more bread in the Natural sence and that it is naturally nothing but the natural body of Christ that the substance of one is passed into the substance of the other this is not affirmed by the Fathers neither can it be inferred from the former propositions if they had been truly alledged and therefore all that is for nothing and must be intended only to cosen and amuse the Reader that understands not all the windings of this labyrinth In the next place I am to give an account of what passed in the Lateran Council upon this Article For says E. W. the doctrine of Transubstantiation was ever believed in the Church though more fully and explicitely declared in the Lateran Council But in the Dissuasive it was said that it was but pretended to be determined in that Council where many things indeed came then in consultation yet nothing could be openly decreed Nothing says Platina that is says my Adversary nothing concerning the holy land and the aids to be raised for it but for all this there might be a decree concerning Transubstantiation To this I reply that it is as true that nothing was done in this question as that nothing was done in the matter of the Holy War for one was as much decreed as the other For if we admit the acts of the Council that of giving aid to the Holy Land was decreed in the 69. â—anon alias 71. So that this answer is not true But the truth is neither the one nor the other was decreed in that Council For that I may inform this Gentleman in a thing which possibly he never heard of this Council of Lateran was never published nor any acts of it till Cochlaeus published them A. D. 1538. For three years before this John Martin published the Councils and then there was no such thing as the acts of the Lateran Council to be found But you will say how came Cochlaeus by them To this the answer is easie There were read in the Council sixty Chapters which to some did seem easie to others burthensome but these were never approved but the Council ended in scorn and mockery and nothing was concluded neither of faith nor manners nor war nor aid for the Holy Land but only the Pope got mony of the Prelates to give them leave to depart But afterwards Pope Gregory IX put these Chapters or some of them into the Decretals but doth not intitle any of these to the Council of Lateran but only to Pope Innocent in the Council which Cardinal Perron ignorantly or wilfully mistaking affirms the contrary But so it is that Platina affirms of the Pope plurima decreta retulit improbavit Joachimi libellum damnavit errores Almerici The Pope recited 60. heads of decrees in the Council but no man says the Council decreed those heads Now these heads Cochlaeus says he found in an old book in Germany And it is no ways probable that if the Council had decreed those heads that Gregory IX who published his Uncles decretal Epistles which make up so great a part of the Canon Law should omit to publish the decrees of this Council or that there should be no acts of this great Council in the Vatican and that there should be no publication of them till about 300. years after the Council and that out of a blind corner and an old unknown Manuscript But the Book shews its original it was taken from the Decretals for it contains just so many heads viz. LXXII and is not any thing of the Council in which only were recited LX. heads and they have the same beginnings and endings and the same notes and observations in the middle of the Chapters which shews plainly they were a meer force of the Decretals The consequent of all which is plainly this that there was no decree made in the Council but every thing was left unfinished and the Council was affrighted by the warlike preparations of them of Genoa and Pisa and all retir'd Concerning which affair the Reader that desires it may receive further satisfaction if he read the Antiquitates Britannicae in the life of Stephen Lancton out of the lesser History of Matthew Paris as also Sabellicus and Godfride the Monk But since it is become a question what was or was not determined in this Lateran Council I am content to tell them that the same authority whether of Pope or Council which made Transubstantiation an article of faith made Rebellion and Treason to be a duty of Subjects for in the same collection of Canons they are both decreed and warranted under the same signature the one being the first Canon and the other the third The use I shall make of all is this Scotus was observed above to say that in Scripture there is nothing so express as to compel us to believe Transubstantiation meaning that without the decree and authority of the Church the Scripture was of it self insufficient And some others as Salmeron notes affirm that Scripture and Reason are both insufficient to convince a heretick in this article this is to be prov'd ex Conciliorum definitione Patrum traditione c. by the definition of Councils and tradition of the Fathers for it were easie to answer the places of Scripture which are cited and the reasons Now then since Scripture alone is not thought sufficient nor reasons alone if the definitions of Councils also shall fail them they will be strangely to seek for their new article Now for this their only Castle of defence is the Lateran Council Indeed Bellarmine produces the Roman Council under Pope Nicholas the second in which Berengarius was forc'd to recant his error about the Sacrament but he recanted it into a worse error and such which the Church of Rome disavows at this day And therefore ought not to pretend it as a patron of that doctrine which she approves not And for the little Council under Greg. 7. it is just so a general Council as the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church or a particular is an Universal But suppose it so for this once yet this Council medled not with the modus viz. Transubstantiation or the ceasing of its being bread but of the Real Presence of Christ under the Elements which is no part of our question Berengarius denied it but we do not when it is rightly understood Pope Nicholaus himself did not understand the new article for it was not fitted for publication until the time of the Lateran Council and how nothing of this was in that Council determin'd I have already made appear and therefore as Scotus said the Scripture alone could not evict this article so he also said in his argument made for the Doctors that held the first opinion mentioned before out of
Original Sin is the lust or concupiscence that is the proneness to sin Now then I demand whether Concupiscence before actual consent be a sin or no and if it be a sin whether it deserves damnation That all sin deserves damnation I am sure our Church denies not If therefore concupiscence before consent be a sin then this also deserves damnation where-ever it is and if so then a man may be damned for Original Sin even after Baptism For even after Baptism concupiscence or the sinfulness of Original Sin remains in the regenerate and that which is the same thing the same viciousness the same enmity to God after Baptism is as damnable it deserves damnation as much as that did that went before If it be replied that Baptism takes off the guilt or formal part of it but leaves the material part behind that is though concupiscence remains yet it shall not bring damnation to the regenerate or Baptized I answer that though baptismal regeneration puts a man into a state of grace and favour so that what went before shall not be imputed to him afterwards that is Adam's sin shall not bring damnation in any sence yet it hinders not but that what is sinful afterwards shall be then imputed to him that is he may be damn'd for his own concupiscence He is quitted from it as it came from Adam but by Baptism he is not quitted from it as it is subjected in himself if I say concupiscence before consent be a sin If it be no sin then for it Infants unbaptized cannot with justice be damn'd it does not deserve damnation but if it be a sin then so long as it is there so long it deserves damnation and Baptism did only quit the relation of it to Adam for that was all that went before it but not the danger of the man * But because the Article supposes that it does not damn the regenerate or baptized and yet that it hath the nature of sin it follows evidently and undeniably that both the phrases are to be diminished and understood in a favourable sence As the phrase the Nature of sin signifies so does Damnation but the Nature of sin signifies something that brings no guilt because it is affirm'd to be in the Regenerate therefore Damnation signifies something that brings no Hell but to deserve Damnation must mean something less than ordinary that is that concupiscence is a thing not morally good not to be allowed of not to be nurs'd but mortifi'd fought against disapprov'd condemn'd and disallowed of men as it is of God And truly My Lord to say that for Adam's sin it is just in God to condemn Infants to the eternal flames of Hell and to say that concupiscence or natural inclinations before they pass into any act could bring eternal condemnation from Gods presence into the eternal portion of Devils are two such horrid propositions that if any Church in the world would expresly affirm them I for my part should think it unlawful to communicate with her in the defence or profession of either and to think it would be the greatest temptation in the world to make men not to love God of whom men so easily speak such horrid things I would suppose the Article to mean any thing rather than either of these But yet one thing more I have to say The Article is certainly to be expounded according to the analogy of faith and the express words of Scripture if there be any that speak expresly in this matter Now whereas the Article explicating Original Sin affirms it to be that fault or corruption of mans nature vitium Naturae not peccatum by which he is far gone from Original righteousness and is inclin'd to evil because this is not full enough the Article adds by way of explanation So that the flesh lusteth against the spirit that is it really produces a state of evil temptations It lusteth that is actually and habitually it lusteth against the spirit and therefore deserves Gods wrath and damnation So the Article Therefore for no other reason but because the flesh lusteth against the spirit not because it can lust or is apta nata to lust but because it lusteth actually therefore it deserves damnation and this is Original Sin or as the Article expresses it it hath the nature of sin it is the fomes or matter of sin and is in the Original of mankind and deriv'd from Adam as our body is but it deserves not damnation in the highest sence of the word till the concupiscence be actual Till then the words of Wrath and Damnation must be meant in the less and more easie signification according to the former explication and must only relate to the personal sin of Adam To this sence of the Article I heartily subscribe For besides the reasonableness of the thing and the very manner of speaking us'd in the Article it is the very same way of speaking and exactly the same doctrine which we find in S. James Jam. 1.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concupiscence when it is impregnated when it hath conceiv'd then it brings forth sin and sin when it is in production and birth brings forth death But in Infants concupiscence is innocent and a virgin it conceives not and therefore is without sin and therefore without death or damnation * Against these expositions I cannot imagine what can be really and materially objected But my Lord I perceive the main out-cry is like to be upon the authority of the Harmony of Confessions Concerning which I shall say this That in this Article the Harmony makes as good musick as Bells ringing backward and they agree especially when they come to be explicated and untwisted into their minute and explicite meanings as much as Lutheran and Calvinist as Papist and Protestant as Thomas and Scotus as Remonstrant and Dordrechtan that is as much as pro and con or but a very little more I have not the book with me here in prison and this neighbourhood cannot supply me and I dare not trust my memory to give a scheme of it but your Lordship knows that in nothing more do the Reformed Churches disagree than in this and its appendages and you are pleased to hint something of it by saying that some speak more of this than the Church of England and Andrew Rivet though unwillingly yet confesses De Confessionibus nostris earum syntagmate vel Harmonia etiamsi in non nullis capitibus non planè conveniant dicam tamen melius in corcordiam redigi posse quà m in Ecclesia Romana concordantiam discordantium Canonum quo titulo decretum Gratiani quod Canonistis regulas praefigit solet insigniri And what he affirms of the whole collection is most notorious in the Article of Original Sin For my own part I am ready to subscribe the first Helvetian confession but not the second So much difference there is in the confessions of the same Church Now whereas your Lordship adds that though they
men are much mistaken some in their opinions concerning the truth of them as believing them to be all true some concerning their purpose as thinking them sufficient not only to condemn all those opinions there called heretical but to be a precedent to all Ages of the Church to be free and forward in calling Heretick But he that considers the Catalogues themselves as they are collected by Epiphanius Philastrius and S. Austin shall find that many are reckoned for Hereticks for opinions in matters disputable and undetermined and of no consequence and in these Catalogues of Hereticks there are men numbred for Hereticks which by every side respectively are acquitted so that there is no company of men in the world that admit these Catalogues as good Records or sufficient sentences of condemnation For the Churches of the Reformation I am certain they acquit Aerius for denying prayer for the dead and the Eustathians for denying invocation of Saints And I am partly of opinion that the Church of Rome is not willing to call the Collyridians Hereticks for offering a Cake to the Virgin Mary unless she also will run the hazard of the same sentence for offering Candles to her And that they will be glad with S. Austin l. 6. de haeres c. 86. to excuse the Tertullianists for picturing God in a visible corporal representment And yet these Sects are put in the black Book by Epiphanius and S. Austin and Isidore respectively I remember also that the Osseni are called Hereticks because they refused to worship towards the East and yet in that dissent I find not the malignity of a Heresie nor any thing against an Article of Faith or good manners and it being only in circumstance it were hard if they were otherwise pious men and true believers to send them to Hell for such a trifle The Parermeneutae refused to follow other mens dictates like sheep but would expound Scripture according to the best evidence themselves could find and yet were called Hereticks whether they expounded true or no. The Pauliciani for being offended at crosses the Proclians for saying in a regenerate man all his sins were not quite dead but only curbed and asswaged were called Hereticks and so condemned for ought I know for affirming that which all pious men feel in themselves to be too true And he that will consider how numerous the catalogues are and to what a volume they are come in their last collections to no less than five hundred and twenty for so many heresies and Hereticks are reckoned by Prateolus may think that if a re-trenchment were justly made of truths and all impertinencies and all opinions either still disputable or less considerable the number would much decrease and therefore that the Catalogues are much amiss and the name Heretick is made a Terriculamentum to affright people from their belief or to discountenance the persons of men and disrepute them that their Schooles may be empty and their Disciples few 20. So that I shall not need to instance how that some men were called Hereticks by Philastrius for rejecting the translation of the Lxx. and following the Bible of Aquila wherein the great faults mentioned by Philastrius are that he translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Christum but unctum Dei and instead of Emanuel writes Deus nobiscum But this most concerns them of the Primitive Church with whom the translation of Aquila was in great reputation is enim veluti plus à quibusdam ..... intellexisse laudatur It was supposed he was a great Clerk and understood more than ordinary it may be he did But whether yea or no yet since the other Translators by the confession of Philastrius quaedam praetermisisse necessitate urgente cogerentur if some wise men or unwise did follow a Translatour who understood the Original well for so Aquila had learnt amongst the Jews It was hard to call men Hereticks for following his Translation especially since the other Bibles which were thought to have in them contradictories and it was confessed had omitted some things were excused by necessity and the others necessity of following Aquila when they had no better was not at all considered nor a less crime than heresy laid upon their score Such another was the heresy of the Quartodecimani for the Easterlings were all proclaimed Hereticks for keeping Easter after the manner of the East and as Socrates and Nicephorus report the Bishop of Rome was very forward to Excommunicate all the Bishops of the lesser Asia for observing the Feast according to the Tradition of their Ancestors though they did it modestly quietly and without faction and although they pretended and were as well able to prove their Tradition from S. John of so observing it as the Western Church could prove their Tradition derivative from S. Peter and S. Paul If such things as these make up the Catalogues of Hereticks as we see they did their accounts differ from the Precedents they ought to have followed that is the censures Apostolical and therefore are unsafe precedents for us and unless they took the liberty of using the word heresy in a lower sence than the world now doth since the Councils have been forward in pronouncing Anathema and took it only for a distinct sence and a differing perswasion in matters of opinion and minute Articles we cannot excuse the persons of the men but if they intended the crime of heresy against those opinions as they laid them down in their Catalogues that crime I say which is a work of the flesh which excludes from the Kingdom of Heaven all that I shall say against them is that the causeless curse shall return empty and no man is damned the sooner because his enemy cryes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they that were the Judges and Accusers might erre as well as the persons accused and might need as charitable construction of their opinions and practices as the other And of this we are sure they had no warrant from any rule of Scripture or practice Apostolical for driving so furiously and hastily in such decretory sentences But I am willing rather to believe their sence of the word Heresie was more gentle than with us it is and for that they might have warrant from Scripture 21. But by the way I observe that although these Catalogues are a great instance to shew that they whose Age and spirits were far distant from the Apostles had also other judgments concerning Faith and heresy than the Apostles had and the Ages Apostolical yet these Catalogues although they are reports of heresies in the second and third Ages are not to be put upon the account of those Ages not to be reckoned as an instance of their judgment which although it was in some degrees more culpable than that of their Predecessors yet in respect of the following Ages it was innocent and modest But these Catalogues I speak of were set down according to the sence of the then present
he is angry at it neque enim putare debemus esse praescriptum ut quod in aliquo loco res aliqua per similitudinem significaverit hoc etiam semper significare credamus 3. Thirdly Oftentimes Scriptures are pretended to be expounded by a proportion and Analogy of reason And this is as the other if it be well it 's well But unless there were some intellectus universalis furnished with infallible propositions by referring to which every man might argue infallibly this Logick may deceive as well as any of the rest For it is with reason as with mens tastes although there are some general principles which are reasonable to all men yet every man is not able to draw out all its consequences nor to understand them when they are drawn forth nor to believe when he does understand them There is a precept of S. Paul directed to the Thessalonians before they were gathered into a body of a Church 2 Thes. 3.6 To withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly But if this precept were now observed I would fain know whether we should not fall into that inconvenience which S. Paul sought to avoid in giving the same commandment to the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 5.9 I wrote to you that ye should not company with fornicators And yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world for then ye must go out of the world And therefore he restrains it to a quitting the society of Christians living ill lives But now that all the world hath been Christians if we should sin in keeping company with vitious Christians must we not also go out of this world Is not the precept made null because the reason is altered and things are come about and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called brethren as S. Pauls phrase is And yet either this never was considered or not yet believed for it is generally taken to be obligatory though I think seldom practised But when we come to expound Scriptures to a certain sence by Arguments drawn from prudential motives then we are in a vast plain without any sufficient guide and we shall have so many sences as there are humane prudences But that which goes further than this is a parity of reason from a plain place of Scripture to an obscure from that which is plainly set down in a Text to another that is more remote from it And thus is that place in S. Matthew forced If thy brother refuse to be amended Dic ecclesiae Hence some of the Roman Doctors argue If Christ commands to tell the Church in case of adultery or private injury then much more in case of heresie Well suppose this to be a good Interpretation Why must I stay here Why may not I also adde by a parity of reason If the Church must be told of heresie much more of treason And why may not I reduce all sins to the cognizance of a Church tribunal as some men do directly and Snecanus does heartily and plainly If a mans principles be good and his deductions certain he need not care whither they carry him But when an Authority is intrusted to a person and the extent of his power expressed in his commission it will not be safety to meddle beyond his commission upon confidence of a parity of reason To instance once more When Christ in pasce oves tu es Petrus gave power to the Pope to govern the Church for to that sence the Church of Rome expounds those Authorities by a certain consequence of reason say they he gave all things necessary for exercise of this jurisdiction and therefore in pasce oves he gave him an indirect power over temporals for that is necessary that he may do his duty Well having gone thus far we will go farther upon the parity of reason therefore he hath given the Pope the gift of tongues and he hath given him power to give it for how else shall Xavier convert the Indians He hath given him power also to command the Seas and the winds that they should obey him for this also is very necessary in some cases And so pasce oves is accipe donum linguarum and Impera ventis dispone regum diademata laicorum praedia and influentias coeli too and whatsoever the parity of reason will judge equally necessary in order to pasce oves When a man does speak reason it is but reason he should be heard but though he may have the good fortune or the great abilities to do it yet he hath not a certainty no regular infallible assistance no inspiration of Arguments and deductions and if he had yet because it must be reason that must judge of reason unless other mens understandings were of the same aire the same constitution and ability they cannot be prescribed unto by another mans reason especially because such reasonings as usually are in explication of particular places of Scripture depend upon minute circumstances and particularities in which it is so easie to be deceived and so hard to speak reason regularly and always that it is the greater wonder if we be not deceived 4. Fourthly Others pretend to expound Scripture by the analogie of Faith and that is the most sure and infallible way as it is thought But upon stricter survey it is but a Chimera a thing in nubibus which varies like the right hand and left hand of a Pillar and at the best is but like the Coast of a Country to a Traveller out of his way It may bring him to his journeys end though twenty miles about it may keep him from running into the Sea and from mistaking a river for dry land but whether this little path or the other be the right away it tells not So is the analogie of Faith that is if I understand it right the rule of Faith that is the Creed Now were it not a fine device to goe to expound all the Scripture by the Creed there being in it so many thousand places which have no more relation to any Article in the Creed than they have to Tityre tu patulae Indeed if a man resolves to keep the analogie of Faith that is to expound Scripture so as not to doe any violence to any fundamental Article he shall be sure however he errs yet not to destroy Faith he shall not perish in his Exposition And that was the precept given by Saint Paul that all Prophecyings should be estimated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 6.12 and to this very purpose St. Austin in his Exposition of Genesis by way of Preface sets down the Articles of Faith with this design and protestation of it that if he says nothing against those Articles though he miss the particular sence of the place there is no danger or sin in his Exposition but how that analogie of Faith should have any other influence in expounding such places in which those Articles of Faith are
yet they are concerning matters of as great consequence as most of those Questions for the determination whereof Traditions are pretended It is more than probable that as in Baptism and the Eucharist the very forms of ministration are transmitted to us so also in confirmation and ordination and that there were special directions for visitation of the sick and explicite interpretations of those difficult places of S. Paul which S. Peter affirmed to be so difficult that the ignorant do wrest them to their own damnation and yet no Church hath conserved these or those many more which S. Basil affirms to be so many that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the day would fail him in the very simple enumeration of all Traditions Ecclesiastical And if the Church hath failed in keeping the great variety of Traditions it will hardly be thought a fault in a private person to neglect Tradition which either the whole Church hath very much neglected inculpably or else the whole Church is very much to blame And who can ascertain us that she hath not entertained some which are no Traditions as well as lost thousands that are That she did entertain some false Traditions I have already proved but it is also as probable that some of those which these Ages did propound for Traditions are not so as it is certain that some which the first Ages called Traditions were nothing less 6. Fourthly There are some opinions which when they began to be publickly received began to be accounted prime Traditions and so became such not by a native title but by adoption and nothing is more usual than for the Fathers to colour their popular opinion with so great an appellative S. Austin called the communicating of Infants an Apostolical Tradition and yet we do not practise it because we disbelieve the Allegation And that every custome which at first introduction was but a private fancy or singular practice grew afterwards into a publick rite and went for a Tradition after a while continuance appears by Tertullian who seems to justifie it Non enim existimas tu licitum esse cuicunque fideli constituere quod Deo placere illi visum fuerit ad disciplinam salutem And again A quocunque traditore censetur nec authorem respicias sed authoritatem And S. Hierome most plainly Praecepta majorum Apostolicas Traditiones quisque existimat And when Irenaeus had observed that great variety in the keeping of Lent which yet to be a fourty days Fast is pretended to descend from Tradition Apostolical some fasting but one day before Easter some two some fourty and this even long before Irenaeus's time he gives this reason Varietas illa jejunii coepit apud Majores nostros qui non accuratè consuetudinem eorum qui vel simplicitate quâdam vel privatâ authoritate in posterum aliquid statuissent observârant ex translatione Christophorsoni And there are yet some points of good concernment which if any man should question in a high manner they would prove indeterminable by Scripture or sufficient reason and yet I doubt not their confident Defenders would say they are opinions of the Church and quickly pretend a Tradition from the very Apostles and believe themselves so secure that they could not be discovered because the Question never having been disputed gives them occasion to say that which had no beginning known was certainly from the Apostles For why should not Divines doe in the Question of reconfirmation as in that of rebaptization Are not the grounds equal from an indeleble character in one as in the other and if it happen such a Question as this after contestation should be determined not by any positive decree but by the cession of one part and the authority and reputation of the other does not the next Age stand fair to be abused with a pretence of Tradition in the matter of reconfirmation which never yet came to a serious Question For so it was in the Question of rebaptization for which there was then no more evident Tradition than there is now in the question of reconfirmation as I proved formerly but yet it was carried upon that Title 7. Fifthly There is great variety in the probation of Tradition so that what ever is proved to be Tradition is not equally and alike credible for nothing but universal Tradition is of it self credible other Traditions in their just proportion as they partake of the degrees of universality Now that a Tradition be universal or which is all one that it be a credible Testimony S. Irenaeus requires that Tradition should derive from all the Churches Apostolical And therefore according to this rule there was no sufficient medium to determine the Question about Easter because the Eastern and Western Churches had several Traditions respectively and both pretended from the Apostles Clemens Alexandrinus sayes it was a secret Tradition from the Apostles that Christ preached but one year But Irenaeus says it did derive from Hereticks and says that he by Tradition first from S. John and then from his Disciples received another Tradition that Christ was almost fifty years old when he died and so by consequence preached almost twenty years both of them were deceived and so had all that had believed the report of either pretending Tradition Apostolical Thus the custome in the Latine Church of fasting on Saturday was against that Tradition which the Greeks had from the Apostles and therefore by this division and want of consent which was the true Tradition was so absolutely indeterminable that both must needs lose much of their reputation But how then when not only particular Churches but single persons are all the proof we have for a Tradition And this often happened I think S. Austin is the chief Argument and Authority we have for the Assumption of the Virgin Mary The Baptism of Infants is called a Tradition by Origen alone at first and from him by others The procession of the holy Ghost from the Son which is an Article the Greek Church disavowes derives from the Tradition Apostolical as it is pretended and yet before S. Austin we hear nothing of it very clearly or certainly for as much as that whole mysterie concerning the blessed Spirit was so little explicated in Scripture and so little derived to them by Tradition that till the Council of Nice you shall hardly find any form of worship or personal address of devotion to the holy Spirit as Erasmus observes and I think the contrary will very hardly be verified And for this particular in which I instance whatsoever is in Scripture concerning it is against that which the Church of Rome calls Tradition which makes the Greeks so confident as they are of the point and is an Argument of the vanity of some things which for no greater reason are called Traditions but because one man hath said so and that they can be proved by no better Argument to be true Now in this case wherein
the hands of the Bishop he was not Confirmed Quo non impetrato quomodo Spiritum Sanctum obtinuisse putandus est Which having not obtain'd how can he be suppos'd to have receiv'd the Holy Spirit The same also something more fully related by Nicephorus but wholly to the same purpose Melchiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain argues excellently about the necessity and usefulness of the Holy Rite of Confirmation What does the mystery of Confirmation profit me after the mystery of Baptism Certainly we did not receive all in our Baptism if after that Lavatory we want something of another kind Let your charity attend As the Military order requires that when the General enters a Souldier into his list he does not only mark him but furnishes him with Arms for the Battel so in him that is Baptiz'd this Blessing is his Ammunition You have given Christ a Souldier give him also Weapons And what will it profit him if a Father gives a great Estate to his Son if he does not take care to provide a Tutor for him Therefore the Holy Spirit is the Guardian of our Regeneration in Christ he is the Comforter and he is the Defender I have already alledged the plain Testimonies of Optatus and S. Cyril in the first Section I add to them the words of S. Gregory Nazianzen speaking of Confirmation or the Christian signature Hoc viventi tibi maximum est tutamentum Ovis enim quae sigillo insignita est non facilè patet insidiis quae verò signata non est facilè à furibus capitur This Signature is your greatest guard while you live For a Sheep when it is mark'd with the Master's sign is not so soon stollen by Thieves but easily if she be not The same manner of speaking is also us'd by S. Basil who was himself together with Eubulus confirm'd by Bishop Maximinus Quomodo curam geret tanquam ad se pertinentis Angelus quomodo eripiat ex hostibus si non agnoverit signaculum How shall the Angel know what sheep belong unto his charge how shall he snatch them from the Enemy if he does not see their mark and signature Theodoret also and Theophylact speak the like words and so far as I can perceive these and the like sayings are most made use of by the School-men to be their warranty for an indeleble Character imprinted in Confirmation I do not interest my self in the question but only recite the Doctrine of these Fathers in behalf of the Practice and Usefulness of Confirmation I shall not need to transcribe hither those clear testimonies which are cited from the Epistles of S. Clement Vrban the First Fabianus and Cornelius the summ of them is in those plainest words of Vrban the First Omnes fideles per manûs impositionem Episcoporum Spiritum Sanctum post Baptismum accipere debent All faithful people ought to receive the Holy Spirit by Imposition of the Bishops hands after Baptism Much more to the same purpose is to be read collected by Gratian de Consecrat dist 4. Presbyt de Consecrat dist 5. Omnes fideles ibid. Spiritus Sanctus S. Hierom brings in a Luciferian asking Why he that is Baptiz'd in the Church does not receive the Holy Ghost but by Imposition of the Bishop's hands The answer is Hanc observâ—tionem ex Scripturae authoritate ad Sacerdotii honorem descendere This observation for the honour of the Priesthood did descend from the authority of the Scriptures adding withall it was for the prevention of Schisms and that the Safety of the Church did depend upon it Exigis ubi scriptum est If you ask where it is written it is answered in Actibus Apostolorum It is written in the Acts of the Apostles But if there were no authority of Scripture for it totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret the Consent of the whole Christian World in this Article ought to prevail as a Commandment But here is a twofold Chord Scripture and Universal Tradition or rather Scripture expounded by an Universal traditive interpretation The same observation is made from Scripture by S. Chrysostom The words are very like those now recited from S. Hierom's Dialogue and therefore need not be repeated S. Ambrose calls Confirmation Spiritale signaculum quod post fontem superest ut perfectio fiat A spiritual Seal remaining after Baptism that Perfection be had Oecumenius calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Perfection Lavacro peccata purgantur Chrismate Spiritus Sanctus superfunditur utraque verò ista manu ore Antistitis impetramus said Pacianus Bishop of Barcinona In Baptism our sins are cleans'd in Confirmation the Holy Spirit is pour'd upon us and both these we obtain by the hands and mouth of the Bishop And again vestrae plebi unde Spiritus quam non consignat unctus Sacerdos The same with that of Cornelius in the case of Novatus before cited I shall add no more lest I overset the Article and make it suspicious by too laborious a defence only after these numerous testimonies of the Fathers I think it may be useful to represent that this Holy Rite of Confirmation hath been decreed by many Councils The Council of Eliberis celebrated in the time of P. Sylvester the First decreed that whosoever is Baptiz'd in his sickness if he recover ad Episcopum eum perducat ut per manûs impositionem perfici possit Let him be brought to the Bishop that he may be perfected by the Imposition of hands To the same purpose is the 77. Can. Episcopus eos per benedictionem perficere debebit The Bishop must perfect those whom the Minister Baptiz'd by his Benediction The Council of Laodicea decreed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All that are Baptized must be anointed with the celestial Unction and so be partakers of the Kingdom of Christ. All that are so that is are Confirm'd for this celestial Unction is done by holy Prayers and the invocation of the Holy Spirit so Zonaras upon this Canon All such who have this Unction shall reign with Christ unless by their wickedness they preclude their own possessions This Canon was put into the Code of the Catholick Church and makes the 152. Canon The Council of Orleans affirms expresly that he who is Baptiz'd cannot be a Christian meaning according to the usual style of the Church a full and perfect Christan nisi confirmatione Episcopali suerit Chrismatus unless he have the Unction of Episcopal Confirmation But when the Church had long disputed concerning the re-baptizing of Hereticks and made Canons for and against it according as the Heresies were and all agreed that if the first Baptism had been once good it could never be repeated yet they thought it fit that such persons should be Confirm'd by the Bishop all supposing Confirmation to be the perfection and consummation of the less-perfect Baptism Thus the
well as the institution it self 201 § 5. Scotus affirmed that the truth of the Eucharist may be saved without Transubstantiation 234 § 11. Some have been poisoned by receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist 249 ss 11. The wine will inebriate after consecration therefore it is not bloud 249 § 11. The Marcossians Valentinians and Marcionites though they denied Christ's having a body yet used the Eucharistical Elements 256 § 12. The Council of Trent binds all its subjects to give to the Sacrament of the Altar the same worship which they give to the true God 267 § 13. To worship the Host is Idolatry 268 § 13. They that worship the Host are many times according to their own doctrine in danger of Idolatry 268 269 § 13. Lewis IX pawned the Host to the Sultan of Egypt upon which they bear it to this day in their Escutcheons 270 § 13. The Primitive Church did excommunicate those that did not receive the Eucharist in both kinds Pref. to Diss. pag. 5. The Council of Constance decreed the half Communion with a non obstante to our Lord's institution 302 c. 1. § 6. Authorities to shew that the half Communion was not in use in the Primitive times 303 c. 1. § 6. Of their worshipping the Host 467. Of Communion in one kind onely 469 470. The word Celebrate when spoken of the Eucharist means the action of the people as well as the Priest 530. The Church of God gave the Chalice to the people for above a thousand years 531. The Roman Churche's consecrating a Wafer is a mere innovation 531 532. The Priest's pardon anciently was nothing but to admit the penitent to the Eucharist 839 n. 54. Of the change that is made in us by it 28. b. The Apostles were confirmed after 30. b. Eusebius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. and 524. Excommunication Neither the Church nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sometimes it was put to signifie Ecclesiastical repentance 830 n. 34. Exorcisms Their exorcisms have been so bad that the Inquisitors have been fain to put them down 333 § 10. The manner of their casting out Devils by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. They give Exorcists distinct ordination 336. Exorcism in the Primitive Church signified nothing but Catechizing 30. b. Ezekiel Chap. 18. v. 3. explained 726 n. 61. F. Faith THE folly of that assertion Credo quia impossibile est when applied to Transubstantiation 231 § 11. To make new Articles of faith that are not in Scripture as the Papists do is condemned by the suffrage of the Fathers Pref. to Diss. pag. 4 5. The Church of Rome adopts uncertain and trifling propositions into their faith 462. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no arricle of faith in Saint Augustine's time 506. What faith is and wherein it consists 941 n. 1. New Articles cannot by the Church be decreed 945 n. 12. Faith is not an act of the understanding onely 949 n. 9. By what circumstances faith becomes moral 950 n. 9. The Romanists keep not faith with hereticks 341. Instances of doctrines that are held by some Romanists to be de fide by others to be not de fide 398. What makes a point to be de fide 399. What it is to be an Article of faith 437. Some things are necessary to be believed that are not articles of faith 437. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new articles as necessary to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Pope hath not power to make Articles of faith 446 447. Upon what motives most men imbrace the faith 460. The faith of unlearned men in the Roman Church 461. Fasting It is one of the best Penances 860 n. 114. Father How God punisheth the Father's sin upon the Children 725. God never imputes the Father's sin to the Children so as to inflict eternal punishment but onely temporal 725 n. 56. This God doth onely in punishments of the greatest crimes 725 n. 59. and not often 726 n. 60. but before the Gospel was published 726 n. 62. Fathers When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of some Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. No man but J. S. affirms that the Fathers are infallible 372 373 374. The Fathers stile some hereticks that are not 376. Of what authority the opinion of the Fathers is with some Romanists 376 377. They complained of the dismal troubles in the Church that arose upon enlarging Creeds 441. They reproved pilgrimages 293 496. The Primitive Fathers that practised prayer for the dead thought not of Purgatory 501. They made prayer for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers 512. A Reply to that Answer of the Romanists That the writings of the Fathers do forbid nothing else but picturing the Divine Essence 550 554. In what sense the ancient Fathers taught the doctrine of original sin 761 n. 22. How the Fathers were divided in the question of the beatifick vision of souls before the day of Judgement 1007. The practice of Rome now is against the doctrine of S. Augustine and 217 Bishops and all their Successours for a whole age together in the question of Appeals to Rome 1008. One Father for them the Papists value more then twenty against them in that case how much they despise them 1008. Gross mistakes taught by several Fathers ibid. The writings of the Fathers adulterated of old and by modern practices 1010. particularly by the Indices Expurgatorii 1011. Fear To leave a sin out of fear is not sinful but may be accepted 785 n. 37. Figure Ambiguous and figurative words may be allowed in a Testament humane or Divine 210 § 6. A certain Athenian's enigmatical Testament ibid. The Lamb is said to be the Passeover of which deliverance it was onely the commemorative sign 211 § 6. How many figurative terms there are in the words of institution 211 212 § 6. When the figurative sense is to be chosen in Scripture 213 § 6. Flesh. The law of the flesh in man 781 n. 31. The contention between it and the Conscience no sign of Regeneration 782 n. 32. How to know which prevails in the contention 782 n. 5. Forgiving Forgiving injuries considered as a part or fruit of Repentance 849 n. 83. Free-will How the necessity of Grace is consistent with this doctrine 754 n. 15. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose it 874. The folly of that assertion We are free to sin but not to good 874. Liberty of action in natural things is better but in moral things it is a weakness 874. G. Galatians CHap. 5.15
calling himself Universal Bishop 310. Saint Peter did not act as having any superiority over the Apostles 310 c. 1. § 10. There is nothing in Scripture to prove that the Bishop of Rome succeeds Saint Peter in that power he had more then any other 310. Pope Victor and Pope Stephen were opposed by other Bishops 310. The Council of Chalcedon did by decree give to the Bishop of Constantinople equal priviledges with Rome 310. A Pope accused in the Lateran Council for not being in Orders 325 c. 2. § 7. It is held ominous for a Pope to canonize a Saint 333 c. 2. § 9. The Romanists teach the Pope hath power to dispense with all the Laws of God 342. He hath power as the Romanists teach to dispose of the temporal things of all Christians 344. He is to be obeyed according to their doctrine though he command Sin or forbid Vertue 345. He takes upon him to depose Princes that are not heretical 345. The greatness of the Pope's power 345. Sixtus Quintus did in an Oration in the Conclave solemnly commend the Monk that kill'd Henry III. of France 346 c. 3. § 3. Of the Pope's confirming a General Council 395. A General Council in many cases cannot have the Pope's Confirmation 396. Whether the Pope be above a Council 396. When Pope Stephen decreed against Saint Cyprian in the point of rebaptizing Hereticks Saint Cyprian regarded it not nor changed his opinion 399. Sixtus V. and some other Popes were Simoniacal 401. A Simoniacal Pope is no Pope ibid. An Heretical Pope is no Pope ibid. What Popes have been heretical 401 402. What Popes have been guilty of those crimes that disannul their authority 400 401 402. The Pope hath not power to make Articles of Faith 446 447. Of his Infallibility 995 § 7. per tot He the Romanists teach can make new Articles of Faith and new Scripture 450. The Roman Writers reckon the Decretal Epistles of Popes among the Holy Scriptures 451. Bellarmine confesseth that for 1500 years the Pope's judgment was not esteemed infallible 453. A strange unintelligible Indulgence given by two Popes about the beginning of the Council of Trent 498. An instance of a Pope's skill in the Bible 505. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. The same Pope that decreed Transubstantiation made Rebellion lawful 520. When the Pope excommunicated Saint Cyprian all Catholicks absolved him 957 n. 22. Some Papists hold that the Popedome is separable from the Bishoprick of Rome how then can he get any thing by the title of Succession 999. Divers ancient Bishops lived separate from the Communion of the Roman Pope 1002. The Bishops of Liguria and Istria renounced subjection to the Patriarchate of Rome and set up one of their own at Aquileia ibid. Divers Popes were Hereticks 1003. Possible Two senses of it 580 n. 34. Prayer The practice of the Heathens in their prayers and hymns to their gods 3 n. 11. Against them that deny all Set forms of Prayer 2 n. 6. seq Against those that allow any Set forms of prayer but those that are enjoyned by Authority 13 n. 51. Prescribed forms in publick are more for the edification of the Church then the other kind 14 n. 56. ad 65. The Lord's Prayer was given to be a Directory not onely for the matter of prayer but the manner or form too 19 n. 75. The Church hath the gift of Prayer and can exercise it in none but prescribed Forms 18 n. 69 70. Our Lord gave his Prayer to be not onely a Copy but a prescribed Form 19 n. 78. The practice of the Primitive Church in this matter 21 n. 86. Whether the Primitive Church did well in using publick prescribed Forms of Prayer and upon what grounds 25 n. 97. An answer to that Objection That Set forms limit the Spirit 30 n. 116. That Objection that Ministers may be allowed a liberty in their Prayers as well as their Sermons answered 32 n. 129. What in the sense of Scripture is praying with the Spirit 9 n. 37. and 47. The Romanists teach that neither attention nor devotion are required in our prayers 327 c. 2. § 8. Of the Scripture and Liturgy in an unknown tongue 471. A Pope gave leave to the Moravians to have Mass in the Sclavonian tongue 534. Of Prayer as a fruit or act of Repentance 848 n. 80. It is one of the best penances 860 n. 114. Those testimonies of the Fathers that prove Prayer for the dead do not prove Purgatory 295. The opinion and practice of the ancient Church in the language of publick Prayers 303 304. The Papists corrupted the Imperial law of Justinian in the matter of Prayers in an unknown tongue 304 c. 1. § 7. The authority of a Pope and General Council against publick Prayers in an unknown tongue 304. The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick Prayer 328 c. 2. § 8. Prayer for the dead The Primitive Fathers that practised it did not think of Purgatory 501. Saint Augustine prayed for his dead Mother when he believed her to be a Saint in Heaven 501 502. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. Communicantes offerentes pro sanctis proved to mean prayer and not thanksgiving onely 502. Instances out of the Latin Missal where prayers are made for those that were dead and yet not in Purgatory 505. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers 512. Preach Presbyters in Africk by Law were not allowed to preach upon occasion of Arius preaching his errours 128 § 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyter Tit. 1.15 it signifies Bishop and not mere Presbyter 71 § 15. Presbyters in Jerusalem were something more then Presbyters in other Churches 97 § 21. Those Presbyters mentioned Act. 20.28 in these words in quo Spir. Sanctus vos posuit Episcopos were Bishops and not mere Presbyters 80 § 21. Neither the Church nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by delegation 82 § 21. In what sense it is true that Bishops are not greater then Presbyters 83 § 21. Bishops in Scripture are styled Presbyters 85 § 23. Apostles in Scripture styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 85 § 23. Mere Presbyters in Scripture are never called Bishops 86 § 23. A Presbyter did once assist at the ordaining a Bishop 98 § 31. Presbyters could not ordain 102 § 32. The Council of Sardis would not own them as Presbyters who were ordained by none but Presbyters 103 § 32. A Bishop may ordain without the concurrence of a Presbyter 105 § 32. Photius was â—he first that gave the power of Confirmation to Presbyters 109 § 33. The Bishop alone could
Gentiles 601 n. 6 7. Two kinds of Conversion one the same with Repentance the other different from it 602 n. 10. The synonymal terms by which Repentance is signified in Scripture 602 n. 11 12. Every relapse after Repentance makes the sin less pardonable 815 n. 11 61 64. Repentance is not true unless the sinner be brought to that pass that he seriously wishes he had never done the sin 827 n. 21. The method and progression of Repentance 827 n. 22. The method of Repentance in the Primitive Church 832 833. The usual acts of Repentance what they are 845 n. 74. Tertullian's description of Repentance 848 n. 80. The penitent must take care that his Repentance injure not his health 852 n. 94. and 858 n. 112. Restitution Considered as a part of Repentance 849 n. 84. No Repentance is entire without Restitution where it is required 648 n. 50. Book of the Revelation Chap. 19. v. 9. Blessed are they that are called to the marriage of the Lamb explained 679 n. 62. Righteousness What was the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees 673 n. 45. The Righteousness of the Law and Gospel how they differ 673 n. 46. Romanists The arts by which they have managed the Article of Transubstantiation Ep. Ded. to Real pres 174. It is acknowledged by them that Transubstantiation cannot be proved out of Scripture 187 § 2. and 298. They and the Non-conformists have always in England encreased alternately as the State minded the reducing either Pref. to Diss. pag. 2 3. They make Propositions which are not in Scripture to be Articles of Faith which is condemned by the Fathers Pref. pag. 4 5. The Character of the Roman Catholick Religion as it is professed by the Irish Pref. to Diss. pag. 6 7 8. Where the Doctrine of the Roman Church is to be found 313 c. 2. § 1. How that Church abuseth Contrition 314. The Roman Doctors prevaricate in the whole Doctrine of Repentance 321. They teach the habit of the sin is not a distinct evil from the act of it 322. That one man may satisfie for the sins of another is their Doctrine 322 c. 2. § 6. They hold that habits of sin are no sins 322 c. 2. § 6. It is no excuse for them to say This is the opinion but of one Doctor 325 c. 2. § 7. They teach that neither Attention nor Devotion are required in our Prayers 327 c. 2. § 8. The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick Prayers 328 c. 2. § 8. They teach the Invocation of Saints 329 332. and that with the same style as they pray to God ibid. They teach that Christ being our Judge is not fit to be our Advocate 329 c. 2. § 9. They interpret the Blessed Virgin to be the Throne of Grace 329. Of their Exorcisms 333 § 10. They attribute the conveying of Grace to things of their own inventing 337 § 11. The Sacraments they teach do not onely convey Grace but supply the defect of it 337. They teach Lying and Equivocation 340. They teach that a man may steal or lie for a good end 341 c. 3. § 1. They keep no Faith with Hereticks 341. They teach the Pope hath power to dispense with all the Laws of God 342. The seal of Confession they will not suffer to be broken to save the life of a King or the whole State 343 c. 3. § 2. The Pope hath power as they teach to dispose of the temporal things of all Christians 344. An Excommunicate King they teach may be deposed or killed 344 c. 3. § 3. A Son or Wife they absolve from their duty to Husband or Father if the Husband or Father be heretical 345. Their Religion no friend to Kings 345. Their Opinions so injurious to Kings are not the Doctrines of private men onely 345. They have no Tradition to assure them the Epistle to the Hebrews is Canonical 361. Of what Authority the opinion of the Fathers is with some Romanists 376 377. They hold the Scripture for no infallible Rule 381 § 1. Even among them the Authority of General Councils is but precarious 391. The great uncertainties the Romanists do relie upon 397 400. Instances of some Doctrines that are held by some Romanists to be de fide by others not to be de fide 398. Of the Divisions in the Church of Rome 403. The Character of the Church of Rome 403. Neither the Church of Rome nor the Fathers nor School-men are agreed upon the definition of a Sacrament 404. The Romanists by their doctrine of Tradition gave great advantage to the Socinians 425. They impute greater virtue to their Sacramentals then to their Sacraments 429. The Romanists have corrupted the Creed in that Article of the Catholick Church by restraining it to the Roman 448. The Roman is not the Mother of all Churches 449. They teach that the Pope can make new Articles of Faith and new Scripture 450. The Authority of the Church of Rome they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. Their Writers reckon the Decretal Epistles of the Popes among the Holy Scriptures 451. Of the Miracles wrought now-a-days by the Romanists 452. The uncharitableness of that Church 460. That Church arrogates to her self an Empire over Consciences 461. The Church of Rome imposes Articles of her own devising as necessary to Salvation 461. The faith of unlearned men in the Roman Church ibid. The Church of Rome adopts uncertain and trifling Propositions into their Faith 462. Upon what ground we put Roman Priests to death 464. The dangers in which they are that live in the Roman Communion 466 467. Of their worshipping the Host 467. Their doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men 473 477. Divers other instances wherein they teach for doctrines the Commandments of men 494. The Roman Churche's consecrating a Wafer is a mere Innovation 531 532. That Church would have sold the Rite of Confirmation to the Greek but they would not buy it Ep. Ded. to the Treatise of Confirmation pag. 5. They teach that Confirmation is a Sacrament and yet hold it not necessary 3. b. Epistle to the Romans Chap. 5. v. 12. ad 19. explained 887 888 889 900 901 903. Chap. 5. v. 12. largely explained 885 887 888 889. Chap. 6.23 The wages of sin is death explained 621 n. 33. Chap. 6.13 20. explained 667 n. 27. Chap. 7.23 explained 723 n. 52. Chap. 7.14 explained 671 n. 40. Chap. 6.7 explained 672 n. 44. Chap. 7.7 explained 689 n. 5. Chap. 5.12 explained 709 710. Chap. 5.13 14. explained 710 n. 7 11. Chap. 7.23 explained 773 and 772. Chap. 7.15 19. explained 772 773. Saint Augustine restrained the words of this Apostle Rom. 7.15 to the matter of Desires and Concupiscence and excluded all evil actions from the meaning of that Text 775 n. 18. Reasons against that Interpretation given by that Father 776 n. 19. Chap. 7.9
be the best way of proving the immortality of the Soul 357. Aristotle believed the Soul of man to be divine and not of the body 718 n. 41. There is no difference between the inferiour and superiour faculties of the Soul 728 n. 68. and 825 n. 19. The frailty of man's Soul 734 n. 83. Spirit Whether the ordinary gifts of the Spirit be immediate infusions of faculties and abilities or an improvement of our natural powers and means 4 n. 15. ad 34. How the Holy Spirit did inspire the Apostles and Writers of the New Testament as to the very words 8 n. 32. What in the sense of Scripture is praying with the Spirit 9 n. 37. and 47. What a Spirit is as to nature 236 § 11. How a Spirit is in place 236 § 11. The Holy Spirit perfects our Redemption 1. b. The Spirit of God 1. b. The frailty of the spirit of man 735 n. 83. The rule of the Spirit in us 782. To have received the Spirit is not an inseparable propriety of the regenerate 786. What the Spirit of God doth in us 787. The regenerate man hath not onely received the Spirit of God but is wholly led by him 788. Sublapsarians Their Doctrine in five Propositions 872. It is not much better then the Supralapsarian 873. Against this way 886 n. 8. Substance What a Substance is 236 § 11. Aquinas says that the Body of Christ is in the Elements not after the manner of a Body but a Substance this Notion considered 238 § 11. Succession Of the succession of Bishops 402 403. Supererogation How it and Christian perfection differ 590 591 n. 16 17. What it is 786. Superlative This is usually exprest by a synonymal word by an Hebraism 909. Supralapsarians Their Doctrine 871. T. Tears A Man by them must not judge of his Repentance nor by any other one way of expression 850 n. 86. Temptation Every temptation to sin if overcome increases not the reward 661 n. 7. No man is tempted of God 737 n. 86. The violence of a temptation doth not in the whole excuse sin 743. Testament In a humane or Divine Testament figurative words may be admitted 210 § 6. A certain Athenian's aenigmatical Testament 210 § 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What they were 835 n. 44. Theodoret. His words about Transubstantiation considered 264 265 § 12. Theology The power of Reason in matters of Theology 230 231 § 11. It findeth a medium between Vertue and Vice 673. Thief on the Cross. Why his Repentance was accepted 681 n. 65. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What that word means 637 n 10. 1. Epistle to Timothy Chap. 4. v. 8. explained 860 n. 114. Chap. 5. v. 22. explained 808 n. 31. Chap. 5.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 152 § 48. and 166 § 51. Chap. 3.15 16. the pillar and ground of truth explained 386 387. Chap. 1.5 6. explained 949 n. 8. 2. Epistle to Timothy Chap. 2. v. 4. explained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 162 § 49. Epistle to Titus Chap. 5.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 780 n. 30. Tradition Christ and his Apostles made use of Scripture for arguments not Tradition 353. An answer to that Objection Tradition is the best argument to prove the Scripture to be the word of God therefore it is a better Principle then that 354. Oral Tradition was useful to convey matter of fact onely not Doctrines 354 355 358. Oral Tradition a very uncertain means to convey down a Doctrine 356. The Romanists have no Tradition to assure them the Epistle to the Hebrews is Canonical 361. The doctrine of the Scriptures sufficiency proved by Tradition 410. Some of the Fathers by Tradition mean Scripture 410 411 412. What Tradition is and what the word meaneth 420 § 3. When and in what case Tradition is an useful Topick 421. It is necessary in the Church because the Scripture could not be conveyed to us without it 424. The Questions that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. The Tradition urged by the Ancients was not oral 425. The Romanists by their doctrine of Tradition gave great advantage to the Socinians 425. The doctrine of the Trinity relieth not upon Tradition but Scripture 425. That the doctrine of Infant-baptism relieth not upon Tradition onely but Scripture too 425 426. The validity of Baptism by Hereticks is not to be proved by Tradition without Scripture 426 427. The Procession of the Holy Ghost may be proved by Scripture without Tradition 427 428. The observation of the Lord's Day relieth not upon Tradition 428. Instances wherein oral Tradition has failed in conveyance 431. Saint Augustine's Rule to try Apostolical Traditions 432. Some Traditions said to be Apostolical have proceeded from the testimony of one man alone and he none of them 432. Of the means of proving a Tradition to be Apostolical 433. Of Vincentius Lirinensis his Rule to discern Apostolical Tradition 434. In the Question about the immaculate Conception Tradition is equally pretended on both sides 435. Traditions now held that are contrary to the Primitive Traditions 453 454. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for Auricular Confession 490. Of what use Tradition is in expounding Scripture 976. It is no sufficient medium to end Controversies 976 sect 5. per tot It was pretended by the Arians and divers other hereticks as well as the Orthodox 977 n. 3. The report of Tradition was uncertain even in the Ages Apostolical 978 n. 4. Tradition could not be made use of to determine the Controversie about Easter between the Churches of the East and West because both sides pretended it 979 n. 7. What Tradition it was the Fathers used to appeal to 979 n. 8. Transubstantiation The arts by which the Romanists have managed this Article Ep. Ded. to Real Pres. 174. It is acknowledged by the Romanists that this doctrine cannot be proved out of Scripture 187 § 2. and 298. How many figurative terms there are in the words of Institution 211 212 § 6. If this doctrine be true then the truth of Christian Religion which relieth upon the evidence of Sense is questionable 223 224 § 10. The Papists Answer to that Argument with our Reply 224 § 10. Bellarmine's Answer and a Reply upon it 226 § 10. If the testimony of our Senses in fit circumstances be not to be relied on the Catholicks could not have confuted the Valentinians and Marcionites 227 § 10. Irenaeus mentions an Impostour that essayed to counterfeit Transubstantiation long before the Roman Church decreed it 228 § 10. The miraculous Apparitions that are brought to prove Transubstantiation are proved to be false by their own doctrine 229 § 10. Picus Mirandula offered to maintain in Rome this Thesis Paneitas potest suppositare corpus Domini 230 § 11. How many ways the words of Christ Hoc est corpus meum may be verified without Transubstantiation 230 231 § 11. The folly of that assertion Credo quia impossibile est when applied to
than they had a mind should be sav'd harmless Men would be safe alone or not at all supposing that their truth and good cause was warranty enough to preserve it self and they thought true it was indeed warranty enough against persecution if men had believed it to be truth but because we were fallen under the power of our worst enemies for Brethren turn'd enemies are ever the most implacable they looked upon us as men in misperswasion and error and therefore I was to defend our persons that whether our cause were right or wrong for it would be supposed wrong yet we might be permitted in liberty and impunity but then the Consequent would be this that if we when we were supposed to be in error were yet to be indemnified then others also whom we thought as ill of were to rejoyce in the same freedom because this equality is the great instrument of justice and if we would not do to others as we desir'd should be done to us we were no more to pretend Religion because we destroy the Law and the Prophets Of this some men were impatient and they would have all the world spare them and yet they would spare no body But because this is too unreasonable I need no excuse for my speaking to other purposes Others complain'd that it would have evil effects and all Heresies would enter at the gate of toleration and because I knew that they would croud and throng in as far as they could I placed such guards and restraints there as might keep out all unreasonable pretenders allowing none to enter here that speak against the Apostles Creed or weakened the hands of Government or were enemies to good life But the most complain'd that in my ways to perswade a toleration I helped some men too far and that I arm'd the Anabaptists with swords instead of shields with a power to offend us besides the proper defensatives of their own To this I shall need no reply but this I was to say what I could to make their persons safe by shewing how probably they were deceived and they who thought it too much had either too little confidence or too little knowledge of the goodness of their own cause and yet if any one made ill use of it it was more than I allowed or intended to him but so all kindness may be abused But if a Criminal be allowed Counsel he would be scorned if he should avow his Advocate as a real Patron of his crime when he only says what he can to alleviate the Sentence But wise men understand the thing and are satisfied but because all men are not of equal strength I did not only in a Discourse on purpose demonstrate the true doctrine in that question but I have now in this Edition of that Book answered all their pretensions not only fearing lest some be hurt with their offensive arms but lest others like Tarpeia the Roman Lady be oppressed with shields and be brought to think well of their Cause by my pleading for their persons And now My Lord I have done all that I can do or can be desired only I cannot repent me of speaking truth or doing charity but when the loyns of the Presbytery did lie heavy upon us and were like to crush us into flatness and death I ought not to have been reproached for standing under the ruine and endeavouring to defend my Brethren and if I had strain'd his arm whom I was lifting up from drowning he should have deplor'd his own necessity and not have reproved my charity if I say I had been too zealous to preserve them whom I ought to love so zealously But I have been told that my Discourse of Episcopacy relying so much upon the Authority of Fathers and Councils whose authority I so much diminish in my Liberty of Prophesying I seem to pull down with one hand what I build with the other To these men I am used to answer that they ought not to wonder to see a man pull down his Out-houses to save his Father and his Children from the flames and therefore if I had wholly destroyed the Topick of Ecclesiastical Antiquity which is but an outward Guard to Episcopacy to preserve the whole Ecclesiastical order I might have been too zealous but in no other account culpable But my Lord I have done nothing of this as they mistake For Episcopacy relies not upon the Authority of Fathers and Councils but upon Scripture upon the institution of Christ or the institution of the Apostles upon an universal Tradition and an universal practice not upon the words and opinions of the Doctors It hath as great a testimony as Scripture it self hath and it is such a government as although every thing in Antiquity does minister to it and illustrate or confirm it yet since it was before the Fathers and Councils and was in full power before they had a being and they were made up of Bishops for the most part they can give no authority to themselves as a body does not beget it self or give strength to that from whence themselves had warranty integrity and constitution We bring the sayings of the Fathers in behalf of Episcopacy because the reputation they have justly purchased from posterity prevails with some and their reason with others and their practice with very many and the pretensions of the adversaries are too weak to withstand that strength But that Episcopacy derives from a higher Fountain appears by the Justifications of it against them who value not what the Fathers say But now he that says that Episcopacy besides all its own proper grounds hath also the witness of Antiquity to have descended from Christ and his Apostles and he that says that in Questions of Religion the Sayings of the Fathers alone is no demonstration of Faith does not speak things contradictory He that says that we may dissent from the Fathers when we have a reason greater than that authority does no way oppose him that says you ought not to dissent from what they say when you have no reason great enough to out-weigh it He that says the words of the Fathers are not sufficient to determine a nice Question stands not against him who says they are excellent Corroboratives in a Question already determined and practised accordingly He that says the Sayings of Fathers are no demonstration in a Question may say true and yet he that says it is a degree of probability may say true too He that says they are not our Masters speaks consonantly to the words of Christ but he that denies them to be good Instructors does not speak agreeably to reason or to the sence of the Church Sometimes they are excellent Arbitrators but not always good Judges In matters of Fact they are excellent Witnesses In matters of Right or Question they are rare Doctors and because they bring good Arguments are to be valued accordingly and he that considers these things will find that Ecclesiastical Antiquity can
of question holy and true As for the form none ever misliked it but they that will admit no form for all admit this that admit any But that these should be parts of Liturgy needs not to be a question when we remember that Hezekiah and the Princes made it a Law to their Church to sing praises to the Lord with the words of David and of Asaph the Seer and that Christ himself did so and his Apostles after the manner of the Jews in the Feast of Passeover sung their Hymns and portions of the great Allelujah in the words of David and Asaph the Seer too and that there was a song in Heaven made up of the words of Moses and David and Jeremy the Seer and that the Apostles and the Church of God always chose to do so according to the commandment of the Apostle that we sing Psalms and Hymns to God I know not where we can have better than the Psalms of David and Asaph and these were ready at hand for the use of the Church insomuch that in the Christian Synaxes particularly in the Churches of Corinth S. Paul observed that every man had a Psalm it was then the common devotion and Liturgy of all the faithful and so for ever and the Fathers of the fourth Council of Toledo justifie the practice of the Church in recitation of the Psalms and Hymns by the example of Christ and his Apostles who after Supper sung a Psalm and the Church did also make Hymns of her own in the honour of Christ and sung them Such as was the Te Deum made by S. Ambrose and S. Augustine and they stood her in great stead not only as acts of direct worship to Christ but as Conservators of the Articles of Christs Divinity of which the Fathers made use against the Heretick Artemon as appears in Eusebius lib. 5. cap. 28. Eccles. Hist. 21. That reading the Scripture was part of the Liturgy of the Apostolical ages we find it in the tenth Canon of the Apostles in Albinus Flaccus Rabanus Maurus and in the Liturgy attributed to S. James Deinde leguntur fusissime oracula sacra veteris Testamenti Prophetarum Filii Dei Incarnatio demonstratur Passio Resurrectio ex mortuis ascensus in Coelum secundus item adventus ejus cum gloria Atque id fit singulis diebus c. 22. So that since thus far the matter of our devotions is warranted by Gods Spirit and the form by the precedents of Scripture too and the ages Apostolical above half of the English Liturgy is as Divine as Scripture it self and the choice of it for practice is no less than Apostolical 23. Of the same consideration is the Lords Prayer commanded by our blessed Saviour in two Evangelists the Introit is the Psal. 95. and the Responsories of Morning and Evening Prayer ejaculations taken from the words of David and Hezekiah the Decalogue recited in the Communion is the ten words of Moses and without peradventure was not taken into the Office in imitation of the Roman for although it was done upon great reason and considering the great ignorance of the people they were to inform yet I think it was never in any Church Office before but in Manuals and Catechisms only yet they are made Liturgick by the suffrages at the end of every Commandment and need no other warrant from antiquity but the 20. Chapter of Exodus There are not many parts beside and they which are derive themselves from an elder house than the Roman Offices The Gloria Patri was composed by the Nicene Council the latter Versicle by S. Jerome though some eminently learned and in particular Baronius is of an opinion that it was much more ancient It was at first a confession of Faith and used by a newly baptized Convert and the standers by and then it came to be a Hymn and very early annexed to the Antiphones and afterwards to the Psalms and Hymns all except that of S. Ambrose beginning with Te Deum because that of it self is a great Doxology It is seven times used in the Greek Office of Baptism and in the recitation of it the Priest and People stood all up and turned to the East and this custom ever continued in the Church and is still retained in the Church of England in conformity to the ancient and Primitive custom save only that in the Litany we kneel which is a more humble posture but not so ancient the Litanies having usually been said walking not kneeling or standing But in this the variety is an ornament to the Churches garment S. Gregory added this Doxology to the Responsory at the beginning of Prayer after O Lord make hast to help us That was the last and yet above a thousand years old and much elder than the body of Popery And as for the latter part of the Doxology I am clearly of opinion that though it might by S. Hierome be brought into the Latin Church yet it was in the Greek Church before him witness that most ancient Hymn or Doxology 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 However as to the matter of the Doxology it is no other than the Confession of the three most blessed persons of the Trinity which Christ commanded and which with greatest solemnity we declare in Baptism and certainly we can no ways better or more solemnly and ritually give glory to the Holy Trinity than by being baptized into the profession and service of it The Trisagion was taught to the Greek Church by Angels but certain it is it sprang not from a Roman fountain and that the Canon of our Communion is the same with the old Canon of the Church many hundred years before Popery had invaded the simplicity of Christian Religion is evident if we compare the particulars recited by S. Basil Innocentius his Epistle to John Archbishop of Lyons Honorius the Priest Alcuinus and Walafridus Strabo and if we will we may add the Liturgy said to be S. James's and the Constitution of S. Clement for whoever was the author of these certainly they were ancient Radulphus Tongrensis and the later Ritualists Cassander Pamelius Hittorpius Jacobus Goar and the rest 24. And that we may be yet more particular the very Prayer for Christs Catholick Church in the Office of Communion beside that it is nothing but a plain execution of an Apostolical precept set down in the Preface of the Prayer it was also used in all times and in all Liturgies of the ancient Church And we find this attested by S. Cyril of Jerusalem Deinde postquam confectum est illud spirituale sacrificium obsecramus Deum pro communi Ecclesiarum pace pro tranquillitate mundi pro Regibus c. To the same purpose also there is a testimony in S. Chrysostome which because it serves not only here but also to other uses it will not be amiss here to note it Quid autem sibi vult primum
elaborentur gratiora tamen quae suâ sponte nascuntur And a garment may as well be made to fit the Moon as that one form of Prayer should be made apt and proportionable to all men or to any man at all times Sect. 52. THIS Discourse relies wholly upon these two grounds A liberty to use variety of forms for prayer is more for the edification of the Church Secondly it is part of that liberty which the Church hath and part of the duty of the Church to preserve the liberty of the Spirit in various forms Sect. 53. BEFORE I descend to consideration of the particulars I must premise this that the gift or ability of prayer given to the Church is used either in publick or in private and that which is fit enough for one is inconvenient in the other and although a liberty in private may be for edification of good people when it is piously and discreetly used yet in the publick if it were indifferently permitted it would bring infinite inconvenience and become intolerable as a sad experience doth too much verifie Sect. 54. BUT now then this distinction evacuates all the former discourse and since it is permitted that every man in private use what forms he please the Spirit hath all that liberty that is necessary and so much as can be convenient the Church may be edified by every mans gift the affections of all men may be complied withall words may be fitted to their fancies their devotions quickned their weariness helped and supported and whatsoever benefit may be fancied by variety and liberty all that may be enjoyed and every reasonable desire or weaker fancy be fully satisfied Sect. 55. BUT since these advantages to devotion are accidental and do consult with weakness and infirmity and depend upon irregular variety for which no antecedent rule can make particular provision it is not to be expected the publick constitution and prescribed forms which are regular orderly and determin'd can make provision for particulars for chances and for infinite varieties And if this were any objection against publick forms it would also conclude against all humane Laws that they did not make provision for all particular accidents and circumstances that might possibly occurr All publick sanctions must be of a publick spirit and design and secure all those excellent things which have influence upon societies and communities of men and publick obligations Sect. 56. THUS if publick forms of Prayer be describ'd whose matter is pious and holy whose design is of universal extent and provisionary for all publick probable fear'd or foreseen events whose frame and composure is prudent and by authority competent and high and whose use and exercise is instrumental to peace and publick charity and all these hallowed by intention and care of doing glory to God and advantages to Religion express'd in observation of all such rules and precedents as are most likely to teach us best and guide us surest such as are Scriptures Apostolical Tradition Primitive practice and precedents of Saints and holy Persons the publick can do no more all the duty is performed and all the care is taken Sect. 57. NOW after all this there are personal necessities and private conveniencies or inconveniencies which if men are not so wise as themselves to provide for by casting off all prejudice and endeavouring to grow strong in Christianity men in Christ and not for ever to be Babes in Religion but frame themselves to a capacity of receiving the benefit of the publick without needing other provisions than what will fit the Church in her publick capacity the Spirit of God and the Church taught by him hath permitted us to comply with our own infirmities while they are innocent and to pray in private in any form of words which shall be most instrumental to our devotion in the present capacity Neque hoc ego ago ut ex tempore dicere malit sed ut possit Sect. 58. AND indeed sometimes an exuberant and an active affection and overflowing of Devotion may descend like anointing from above and our cup run over and is not to be contained within the margent of prescribed forms And though this be not of so great consideration as if it should happen to a man in publick that it is then fit for him or to be permitted to express it in forms unlimited and undetermin'd For there was a case in the dayes of the inundation of the Spirit when a man full of the Spirit was commanded to keep silence in the Church and to speak to himself and to God yet when this grace is given him in private he may compose his own Liturgy pectus enim est quod disertos facit vis mentis Ideoque imperitis quoque si modò sint aliquo affectu concitati verba non desunt Only when in private devotion we use forms of our own making or chusing we are concern'd to see that the matter be pious apt for edification and the present necessity and without contempt of publick prescriptions or irreverence to God and in all the rest we are at liberty only in the Lord that is according to the rule of faith and the analogy of Christian Religion For supposing that our devotion be fervent our intention pious and the petition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the will of God Whatsoever our expressions are God reads the petition in the Character of the spirit though the words be brevia concisa singultantium modo ejecta But then these accidental advantages and circumstances of profit which may be provided for in private as they cannot be taken care of in publick so neither is it necessary they should for those pleasures of sensible devotion are so far from being necessary to the acceptation of prayer that they are but compliances with our infirmities and suppose a great weakness in him that needs them say the Masters of spiritual life and in the strongest prayers and most effectual devotions are seldomest found such as was Moses prayer when he spake nothing and Hannah's and our blessed Saviour's when he called upon his Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with strong cries in that great desertion of spirit when he prayed in the Garden In these prayers the spirit was bound up with the strictness and violence of intention but could not ease it self with a flood of language and various expression A great devotion is like a great grief not so expressive as a moderate passion tears spend the grief and variety of language breaths out the devotion and therefore Christ went thrice and said the same words he could just speak his sence in a plain expression but the greatness of his agony was too big for the pleasure of a sweet and sensible expression of devotion Sect. 59. SO that let the devotion be never so great set forms of prayer will be expressive enough of any desire though importunate as extremity it self but when the spirit is
ought not in sacris in holy persons and places and offices it is too probable that this is the preparatory for the Antichrist and grand Apostasie For if Antichrist shall exalt himself above all that is called God and in Scripture none but Kings and Priests are such Dii vocati Dii facti I think we have great reason to be suspicious that he that devests both of their power and they are if the King be Christian in very near conjunction does the work of Antichrist for him especially if the men whom it most concerns will but call to mind that the discipline or Government which Christ hath instituted is that Kingdom by which he governs all Christendom so themselves have taught us so that in case it be proved that Episcopacy is that government then they to use their own expressions throw Christ out of his Kingdom and then either they leave the Church without a head or else put Antichrist in substitution We all wish that our fears in this and all things else may be vain that what we fear may not come upon us but yet that the abolition of Episcopacy is the fore-runner and preparatory to the great Apostasie I have these reasons to shew at least the probability First Because here is a concurse of times for now after that these times have been called the last times for 1600 years together our expectation of the Great revelation is very near accomplishing and what a Grand innovation of Ecclesiastical government contrary to the faith and practice of Christendom may portend now in these times when we all expect Antichrist to be revealed is worthy of a jealous mans inquiry Secondly Episcopacy if we consider the final cause was instituted as an obstructive to the diffusion of Schism and Heresie So S. Hierome In toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris Electus superponeretur caeteris VT SCHISMATVM SEMINA TOLLERENTVR And therefore if unity and division be destructive of each other then Episcopacy is the best deletery in the world for Schism and so much the rather because they are in eâdem materiâ for Schism is a division for things either personal or accidental which are matters most properly the subject of government and there to be tried there to receive their first and last breath except where they are starv'd to death by a desuetude and Episcopacy is an Unity of person-governing and ordering persons and things accidental and substantial and therefore a direct confronting of Schism not only in the intention of the author of it but in the nature of the institution Now then although Schisms always will be and this by divine prediction which clearly shews the necessity of perpetual Episcopacy and the intention of its perpetuity either by Christ himself ordaining it who made the prophecy or by the Apostles and Apostolick men at least who knew the prophecy yet to be sure these divisions and dangers shall be greater about and at the time of the Great Apostasie for then were not the hours turned into minutes an universal ruine should seize all Christendom No flesh should be saved if those days were not shortened Is it not next to an evidence of fact that this multiplication of Schisms must be removendo prohibens and therefore that must be by invalidating Episcopacy ordained as the remedy and obex of Schism either tying their hands behind them by taking away their coercion or by putting out their eyes by denying them cognizance of causes spiritual or by cutting off their heads and so destroying their order How far these will lead us I leave to be considered This only Percute pastores atque oves dispergentur and I believe it will be verified at the coming of that wicked one I saw all Israel scattered upon the Mountains as sheep having no shepherd I am not new in this conception I learn'd it of S. Cyprian Christi adversarius Ecclesiae ejus inimicus ad hoc ECCLESIAE PRAEPOSITVM suâ infestatione persequitur ut Gubernatore sublato atrocius atque violentius circa Ecclesiae naufragia grassetur The adversary of Christ and enemy of his Spouse therefore persecutes the Bishop that having taken him away he may without check pride himself in the ruines of the Church and a little after speaking of them that are enemies to Bishops he says that Antichristi jam propinquantis adventum imitantur their deportment is just after the guise of Antichrist who is shortly to be revealed But be this conjecture vain or not the thing of it self is of deep consideration and the Catholick practice of Christendom for 1500 years is so insupportable a prejudice against the enemies of Episcopacy that they must bring admirable evidence of Scripture or a clear revelation proved by Miracles or a contrary undoubted tradition Apostolical for themselves or else hope for no belief against the prescribed possession of so many ages But before I begin methinks in this contestation ubi potior est conditio possidentis it is a considerable Question what will the adversaries stake against it For if Episcopacy cannot make its title good they lose the benefit of their prescribed possession If it can I fear they will scarce gain so much as the obedience of the adverse party by it which yet already is their due It is very unequal but so it is ever when Authority is the matter of the Question Authority never gains by it for although the cause go on its side yet it loses costs and dammages for it must either by fair condescension to gain the adversaries lose something of it self or if it asserts it self to the utmost it is but that seldom or never happens for the very questioning of any authority hoc ipso makes a great intrenchment even to the very skirts of its cloathing But huc deventum est Now we are in we must go over SECT I. Christ did institute a Government in his Church FIRST then that we may build upon a Rock Christ did institute a government to order and rule his Church by his Authority according to his Laws and by the assistance of the blessed Spirit 1. If this were not true how shall the Church be governed For I hope the adversaries of Episcopacy that are so punctual to pitch all upon Scripture ground will be sure to produce clear Scripture for so main a part of Christianity as is the Form of the Government of Christs Church And if for our private actions and duties Oeconomical they will pretend a text I suppose it will not be thought possible Scripture should make default in assignation of the publick Government insomuch as all Laws intend the publick and the general directly the private and the particular by consequence only and comprehension within the general 2. If Christ himself did not take order for a Government then we must derive it from humane prudence and emergency of conveniences and concurse of new circumstances and then the Government must often
office above Presbyters for in Scripture they could never do it and this is it which we call Episcopacy SECT IX And Superiority of Jurisdiction THIRDLY The Apostles were Rulers of the whole Church and each Apostle respectively of his several Diocess when he would fix his Chair and had superintendency over the Presbyters and the people and this by Christ's donation the Charter is by the Fathers said to be this Sicut misit me Pater sicâ— ego mitto vos As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Manifesta enim est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à Patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes said Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop in the Council of Carthage related by S. Cyprian and S. Austin But however it is evident in Scripture that the Apostles had such superintendency over the inferior Clergy Presbyters I mean and Deacons and a superiority of jurisdiction and therefore it is certain that Christ gave it them for none of the Apostles took this honour but he that was called of God as was Aaron 1. Our blessed Saviour gave to the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis It was sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father sent so I send You my Apostles whom I have chosen This was not said to Presbyters for they had no commission at all given to them by Christ but at their first mission to preach repentance I say no commission at all they were not spoken to they were not present Now then consider Suppose that as Aerius did deny the Divine institution of Bishops over the Presbyters cum grege another as confident as he should deny the Divine institution of Presbyters what proof were there in all the holy Scripture to shew the Divine institution of them as a distinct Order from Apostles or Bishops Indeed Christ selected 72. and gave them commission to preach but that commission was temporary and expired before the crucifixion for ought appears in Scripture If it be said the Apostles did ordain Presbyters in every City it is true but not sufficient for so they ordained Deacons at Jerusalem and in all established Churches and yet this will not tant'amount to an immediate Divine institution for Deacons and how can it then for Presbyters If we say a constant Catholick traditive interpretation of Scripture does teach us that Christ did institute the Presbyterate together with Episcopacy and made the Apostles Presbyters as well as Bishops this is true But then 1. We recede from the plain words of Scripture and rely upon tradition which in this Question of Episcopacy will be of dangerous consequence to the enemies of it for the same tradition if that be admitted for good probation is for Episcopal preheminence over Presbyters as will appear in the sequel 2. Though no use be made of this advantage yet to the allegation it will be quickly answered that it can never be proved from Scripture that Christ made the Apostles Priests first and then Bishops or Apostles but only that Christ gave them several commissions and parts of the Office Apostolical all which being in one person cannot by force of Scripture prove two Orders Truth is if we change the scene of war and say that the Presbyterate as a distinct Order from the ordinary Office of Apostleship is not of Divine institution the proof of it would be harder than for the Divine institution of Episcopacy Especially if we consider that in all the enumerations of the parts of Clerical Offices there is no enumeration of Presbyters but of Apostles there is and the other Members of the induction are of gifts of Christianity or parts of the Apostolate and either must infer many more Orders than the Church ever yet admitted of or none distinct from the Apostolate insomuch as Apostles were Pastors and Teachers and Evangelists and Rulers and had the gift of Tongues of Healing and of Miracles This thing is of great consideration and this use I will make of it That either Christ made the 72. to be Presbyters and in them instituted the distinct Order of Presbyterate as the ancient Church alwayes did believe or else he gave no distinct commission for any such distinct Order If the second be admitted then the Presbyterate is not of immediate divine institution but of Apostolical only as is the Order of Deacons and the whole plenitude of power is in the Order Apostolical alone and the Apostles did constitute Presbyters with a greater portion of their own power as they did Deacons with a less But if the first be said then the commission to the 72. Presbyters being only of preaching that we find in Scripture all the rest of their power which now they have is by Apostolical ordinance and then although the Apostles did admit them in partem sollicitudinis yet they did not admit them in plenitudinem potestatis for then they must have made them Apostles and then there will be no distinction of order neither by Divine nor Apostolical institution neither I care not which part be chosen one is certain but if either of them be true then since to the Apostles only Christ gave a plenitude of power it follows that either the Presbyters have no power of jurisdiction as affixed to a distinct order and then the Apostles are to rule them by vertue of the order and ordinary commission Apostolical or if they have jurisdiction they do derive it à foâ—te Apostolorum and then the Apostles have superiority of jurisdiction over Presbyters because Presbyters only have it by delegation Apostolical And that I say truth besides that there is no possibility of shewing the contrary in Scripture by the producing any other commission given to Presbyters then what I have specified I will hereafter shew it to have been the faith and practice of Christendom not only that Presbyters were actually subordinate to Bishops which I contend to be the ordinary office of Apostleship but that Presbyteâ—s have no Jurisdiction essential to their order but derivative only from Apostolical preheminence 2. Let us now see the matter of fact They that can inflict censures upon Presbyters have certainly superiority of Jurisdiction over Presbyters for Aequalis aequalem coercere non potest saith the Law Now it is evident in the case of Diotrephes a Presbyter and a Bishop Would be that for his peremptory rejection of some faithful people from the Catholick Communion without cause and without authority Saint John the Apostle threatned him in his Epistle to Gaius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wherefore when I come I will remember him and all that would have been to very little purpose if he had not had coercive jurisdiction to have punisht his delinquency 3. Presbyters many of them did succeed the Apostles by a new Ordination as Matthias succeeded Judas who before his new ordination was
command this as an Apostle for what am I and what is my Fathers house that I should compare my self with them but as your fellow souldier and a Monitor But this answers it self if we consider to whom he speaks it Not to his own Church of Antioch for there he might command as an Apostle but to the Philadelphians he might not they were no part of his Diocess he was not their Apostle and then because he did not equal the Apostles in their commission extraordinary in their personal priviledges and in their universal jurisdiction therefore he might not command the Philadelphians being another Bishops charge but admonish them with the freedom of a Christian Bishop to whom the souls of all faithful people were dear and precious So that still Episcopacy and Apostolate may be all one in ordinary office this hinders not and I know nothing else pretended and that antiquity is clearly on this side is the next business For hitherto the discourse hath been of the immediate Divine institution of Episcopacy by arguments derived from Scripture I shall only add two more from Antiquity and so pass on to tradition Apostolical SECT X. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship according to the general Tenent of Antiquity 1. THE belief of the Primitive Church is that Bishops are the ordinary successors of the Apostles and Presbyters of the LXXII and therefore did believe that Episcopacy is as truly of Divine institution as the Apostolate for the ordinary office both of one and the other is the same thing For this there is abundant testimony Some I shall select enough to give fair evidence of a Catholick tradition S. Irenaeus is very frequent and confident in this particular Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos Etenim si recondita mysteria scîssent Apostoli his vel maxime traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant quos successores relinquebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes We can name the men the Apostles made Bishops in their several Churches appointing them their successors and most certainly those mysterious secrets of Christianity which themselves knew they would deliver to them to whom they committed the Churches and left to be their successors in the same power and authority themselves had Tertullian reckons Corinth Philippi Thessalonica Ephesus and others to be Churches Apostolical apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident Apostolical they are from their foundation and by their succession for the Apostles did found them and Apostles or men of Apostolick authority still do govern them S. Cyprian Hoc enim vel maximè Frater laboramus laborare debemus ut Vnitatem à Domino per Apostolos Nobis Successoribus traditam quantùm possumus obtinere curemus We must preserve the Vnity commanded us by Christ and delivered by his Apostles to us their Successors To us Cyprian and Cornelius for they only were then in view the one Bishop of Rome the other of Carthage And in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum Nec haec jacto sed dolens profero cum te Judicem Dei constituas Christi Qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ ordinatione succedunt qui vos audit me audit c. Christ said to his Apostles and in them to the Governours or Bishops of his Church who succeeded the Apostles as Vicars in their absence He that heareth you heareth me Famous is that saying of Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop spoken in the Council of Carthage and repeated by S. Austin Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes Nos successimus We succeed the Apostles governing the Church by the same power He spake it in full Council in an assembly of Bishops and himself was a Bishop The Council of Rome under S. Sylvester speaking of the honour due to Bishops expresses it thus Non oportere quemquam Domini Discipulis id est Apostolorum successoribus detrahere No man must detract from the Disciples of our Lord that is from the Apostles successors S. Hierome speaking against the Montanists for undervaluing their Bishops shews the difference of the Catholicks honouring and the Hereticks disadvantaging that sacred order Apud nos saith he Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent apud eos Episcopus tertius est Bishops with us Catholicks have the place or authority of Apostles but with them Montanists Bishops are not the first but the third state of Men. And upon that of the Psalmist pro Patribus nati sunt tibi filii S. Hierome and divers others of the Fathers make this gloss Pro Patribus Apostolis filii Episcopi ut Episcopi Apostolis tanquam filii Patribus succedant The Apostles are Fathers instead of whom Bishops do succeed whom God hath appointed to be made Rulers in all lands So S. Hierome S. Austin and Euthymius upon the 44 Psalm alià s 45. But S. Austin for his own particular makes good use of his succeeding the Apostles which would do very well now also to be considered Si solis Apostolis dixit qui vos spernit me spernit spernite nos si autem sermo ejus pervenit ad nos vocavit nos in eorum loco constituit nos videte ne spernatis nos It was good counsel not to despise Bâ—shops for they being in the Apostles places and offices are concerned and protectâ—d by that saying He that despiseth you despiseth me I said it was good counsel especially if besides all these we will take also S. Chrysostomes testimony Potestas anathematizandi ab Apostâ—lis ad successores eorum nimirum Episcopos transit A power of anathematizing delinquents is derived from the Apostles to their successors even to Bishops S. Ambrose upon that of S. Paul Ephes. 4. Quosdam dedit Apostolos Apostoli Episcopi sunt He hath given Apostles that is he hath given some Bishops That 's downright and this came not by chance from him he doubles his assertion Caput itaque in Ecclesiâ Apostolis posuit qui legati Christi sunt sicut dicit idem Apostolus pro quo legatione fungimur Ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante istud Petro Apostolo dicente inter caetera de Judâ Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter And a third time Numquid omnes Apostoli verum est Quia in Ecclesiâ Vnus est Episcopus Bishop and Apostle was all one with S. Ambrose when he spake of their ordinary offices which puts me in mind of the fragment of Polycrates of the Martyrdom of Timothy in Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle Timothy was ordained Bishop in the Metropolis
Antioch for a time was governed for all these were Presbyters in the sence that S. Peter and S. John were and the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem * 4. Suppose this had been true in the sence that any body please to imagine yet this not being by any divine Ordinance that Presbyters should by their counsel assist in external regiment of the Church neither by any imitation of Scripture nor by affirmation of S. Hierom it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of S. Ambrose Postquà m omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae officia ordinata aliter composita res est quam coeperat It might be so at first de facto and yet no need to be so neither then nor after For at first Ephesus had no Bishop of its own nor Crete and there was no need for S. Paul had the supra-vision of them and S. John and other of the Apostles but yet afterwards S. Paul did send Bishops thither for when themselves were to go away the power must be concredited to another And if they in their absence before the constituting of a Bishop had intrusted the care of the Church with Presbyters yet it was but in dependance on the Apostles and by substitution not by any ordinary power and it ceased at the presence or command of the Apostle or the sending of a Bishop to reside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So S. Ignatius being absent from his Church upon a business of being persecuted he writ to his Presbyters Do you feed the Flock amongst you till God shall shew you who shall be your Ruler viz. My Successor No longer Your Commission expires when a Bishop comes * 5. To the conclusion of S. Hierom's discourse viz. That Bishops are not greater than Presbyters by the truth of Divine disposition I answer that this is true in this sence Bishops are not by Divine disposition greater than all those which in Scripture are called Presbyters such as were the Elders in the Councel at Jerusalem such as were they of Antioch such as S. Peter and S. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all and yet all of them were not Bishops in the present sence that is of a fixt and particular Diocess and Jurisdiction * Secondly S. Hierom's meaning is also true in this sence Bishops by the truth of the Lords disposition are not greater than Presbyters viz. quoad exercitium actûs that is they are not tyed to exercise jurisdiction solely in their own persons but may asciscere sibi Presbyteros in commune consilium they may delegate jurisdiction to the Presbyters and that they did not so but kept the exercise of it only in their own hands in S. Hierome's time this is it which he saith is rather by custom than by Divine dispensation for it was otherwise at first viz. de facto and might be so still there being no Law of God against the delegation of power Episcopal * As for the last words in the Objection Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere it is an assumentum of S. Hierom's own for all his former discourse was of the identity of Names and common Regiment de facto not de jure and from a fact to conclude with a Deberet is a Non sequitur unless this Debere be understood according to the exigence of the former Arguments that is they ought not by God's Law but in imitation of the practice Apostolical to wit when things are as they were then when the Presbyters are such as then they were they ought for many considerations and in great cases not by the necessity of a precept * And indeed to do him right he so explains himself Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere imitantes Moysen qui cum haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel septuaginta elegit cum quibus populum judicaret The Presbyters ought to judge in common with the Bishop for the Bishops ought to imitate Moses who might have ruled alone yet was content to take others to him and himself only to rule in chief Thus S. Hierome would have the Bishops do but then he acknowledges the right of sole jurisdiction to be in them and therefore though his counsel perhaps might be good then yet it is necessary at no time and was not followed then and to be sure is needless now For the Arguments which S. Hierome uses to prove this intention what ever it is I have and shall elsewhere produce for they yield many other considerations than this collection of S. Hierome and prove nothing less than the equality of the Offices of Episcopacy and Presbyterate The same thing is per omnia respondent to the parallel place of S. Chrysostom It is needless to repeat either the Objection or Answer * But however this saying of S. Hierome and the parallel of S. Chrysostom is but like an argument against an evident truth which comes forth upon a desperate service and they are sure to be killed by the adverse party or to run upon their own Swords For either they are to be understood in the sences above explicated and then they are impertinent or else they contradict evidence of Scripture and Catholick antiquity and so are false and die within their own trenches I end this argument of tradition Apostolical with that saying of Saint Hierome in the same place Postquam Vnusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse non Christi diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli Ego Apollo Ego autem Cephae in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ut schismatum semina tollerentur That is a publick decree issued out in the Apostles times that in all Churches one should be chosen out of the Clergy and set over them viz. to rule and govern the Flock committed to his charge This I say was in the Apostles times even upon the occasion of the Corinthian schism for then they said I am of Paul and I of Apollo and then it was that he that baptized any Catechumens took them for his own not as Christ's Disciples So that it was tempore Apostolorum that this decree was made for in the time of the Apostles S. James and S. Mark and S. Timothy and S. Titus were made Bishops by S. Hieroms express attestation It was also toto orbe decretum so that if it had not been proved to have been an immediate Divine institution yet it could not have gone much less it being as I have proved and as S. Hierom acknowledges Catholick and Apostolick * SECT XXII And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom BE ye followers of me as I am of Christ is an Apostolical precept We have seen how the Apostles have followed Christ how their tradition is consequent of Divine institution Next let us see how the Church hath followed the Apostles as the Apostles have followed Christ. Catholick practice is the next Basis of the
Bishop and were his Emissaries for the gaining souls in City or Suburbs But when the Bishops divided Parishes and fixt the Presbyters upon a cure so many Parishes as they distinguished so many delegations they made And these we all believe to be good both in Law and Conscience For the Bishop per omnes divinos ordines propriae hierarchiae exercet mysteria saith Saint Denis he does not do the offices of his Order by himself only but by others also for all the inferiour Orders do so operate as by them he does his proper offices * But besides this grand act of the Bishops first and then of all Christendom in consent we have fair precedent in Saint Paul for he made delegation of a power to the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous person It was a plain delegation for he commanded them to do it and gave them his own spirit that is his own authority and indeed without it I scarce find how the Delinquent should have been delivered over to Satan in the sence of the Apostolick Church that is to be buffetted for that was a miraculous appendix of power Apostolick * When Saint Paul sent for Timothy from Ephesus he sent Tychicus to be his Vicar Do thy diligence to come unto me shortly for Demas hath forsaken me c. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus Here was an express delegation of the power of jurisdiction to Tychicus who for the time was Curate to Saint Timothy Epaphroditus for a while attended on Saint Paul although he was then Bishop of Philippi and either Saint Paul or Epaphroditus appointed one in substitution or the Church was relinquished for he was most certainly non-resident * Thus also we find that Saint Ignatius did delegate his power to the Presbyters in his voyage to his Martyrdom Presbyteri pascite gregem qui inter vos est donec Deus designaverit eum qui principatum in vobis habiturus est Ye Presbyters do you feed the Flock till God shall design you a Bishop Till then Therefore it was but a delegate power it could not else have expired in the presence of a Superiour To this purpose is that of the Laodicean Council Non oportet Presbyteros ante ingressum Episcopi ingredi sedere in tribunalibus nisi fortè aut aegrotet Episcopus aut in peregrinis eum esse constiterit Presbyters must not sit in Consistory without the Bishop unless the Bishop be sick or absent So that it seems what the Bishop does when he is in his Church that may be committed to others in his absence And to this purpose Saint Cyprian sent a plain Commission to his Presbyters Fretus ergo dilectione religione vostrâ his literis hortor mando ut vos Vice mea fungamini circa gerenda ea quae adiministratio religiosa deposcit I intreat and command you that you do my office in the administration of the affairs of the Church and another time he put Herculanus and Caldonius two of his Suffragans together with Rogatianus and Numidicus two Priests in substitution for the excommunicating Foelicissimus and four more Cùm ego vos pro me Vicarios miserim So it was just in the case of Hierocles Bishop of Alexandria and Melitius his Surrogate in Epiphanius Videbatur autem Melitius praemenire c. ut qui secundum locum habebat post Petrum in Archiepiscopatu velut adjuvandi ejus gratiâ sub ipso existens sub ipso Ecclesiastica curans He did Church offices under and for Hierocles And I could never find any Canon or personal declamatory clause in any Council or Primitive Father against a Bishops giving more or less of his jurisdiction by way of delegation * Hitherto also may be referr'd that when the goods of all the Church which then were of a perplex and busie dispensation were all in the Bishops hand as part of the Episcopal function yet that part of the Bishops office the Bishop by order of the Council of Chalcedon might delegate to a Steward provided he were a Clergy-man and upon this intimation and decree of Chalcedon the Fathers in the Council of Sevill forbad any Lay-men to be Stewards for the Church Elegimus ut unusquisque nostrûm secundùm Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat But the reason extends the Canon further Indecorum est enim laicum Vicarium esse Episcopi Saeculares in Ecclesiâ judicare Vicars of Bishops the Canon allows only forbids Lay-men to be Vicars In uno enim eodemque officio non decet dispar professio quod etiam in divinâ lege prohibetur c. In one and the same office the Law of God forbids to joyn men of disparate capacities Then this would be considered For the Canon pretends Scripture Precepts of Fathers and Tradition of Antiquity for its Sanction SECT LI. But they were ever Clergy-men for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church FOR although Antiquity approves of Episcopal delegations of their power to their Vicars yet these Vicars and Delegates must be Priests at least Melitius was a Biship and yet the Chancellor of Hierocles Patriarch of Alexandria so were Herculanus and Caldonius to Saint Cyprian But they never delegated to any Lay-man any part of their Episcopal power precisely Of their lay-power or the cognisance of secular causes of the people I find one delegation made to some Gentlemen of the Laity by Sylvanus Bishop of Troas when his Clerks grew covetous he cur'd their itch of Gold by trusting men of another profession so to shame them into justice and contempt of money Si quis autem Episcopus posthâc Ecclesiasticam rem aut Laicali procuratione administrandam elegerit non solùm à Christo de rebus Pauperum judicatur reus sed etiam Concilio manebit obnoxius If any Bishop shall hereafter concredit any Church affairs to Lay-Administration he shall be responsive to Christ and in danger of the Council But the Thing was of more ancient constitution For in that Epistle which goes under the Name of Saint Clement which is most certainly very ancient whoever was the Author of it it is decreed Si qui ex Fratribus negotia habent inter se apud cognitores saeculi non judicentur sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid illud est dirimatur If Christian people have causes of difference and judicial contestation let it be ended before the Priests For so Saint Clement expounds Presbyteros in the same Epistle reckoning it as a part of the sacred Hierarchy To this or some parallel constitution Saint Hierom relates saying that Priests from the beginning were appointed Judges of causes He expounds his meaning to be of such Priests as were also Bishops and they were Judges ab initio from the beginning saith S. Hierom So that the saying of the Father may no way prejudge
but is an affirmation of the manner though in disputation it be made the predicate of a proposition and the opposite member of a distinction That body which was crucified is not that body that is eaten in the Sacrament if the intention of the proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being but that body which was crucified the same body we do eat if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several manners of being and operating and this I noted that we may not be prejudiced by words when the notion is certain and easie And thus far is the sence of our doctrine in this Article 12. On the other side the Church of Rome uses the same words we do but wholly to other purposes affirming 1. That after the words of consecration on the Altar there is no bread in the Chalice there is no wine 2. That the accidents that is the colour the shape the bigness the weight the smell the nourishing qualities of bread and wine do remain but neither in the bread nor in the body of Christ but by themselves that is so that there is whiteness and nothing white sweetness and nothing sweet c. 3. That in the place of the substance of bread and wine there is brought the natural body of Christ and his blood that was shed upon the Cross. 4. That the flesh of Christ is eaten by every Communicant good and bad worthy and unworthy 5. That this is conveniently properly and most aptly called Transubstantiation that is a conversion of the whole substance of bread into the substance of Christs natural body of the whole substance of the wine into his blood In the process of which doctrine they oppose spiritualiter to sacramentaliter and realiter supposing the spiritual manducation though done in the Sacrament by a worthy receiver not to be sacramental and real 13. So that now the question is not Whether the symbols be changed into Christs body and blood or no For it is granted on all sides but whether this conversion be Sacramental and figurative or whether it be natural and bodily Nor is it whether Christ be really taken but whether he be taken in a spiritual or in a natural manner We say the conversion is figurative mysterious and Sacramental they say it is proper natural and corporal we affirm that Christ is really taken by Faith by the Spirit to all real effects of his passion they say he is taken by the mouth and that the spiritual and the virtual taking him in virtue or effect is not sufficient though done also in the Sacrament Hic Rhodus his saltus This thing I will try by Scripture by Reason by Sense and by Tradition SECT II. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture 1. THE Scriptures pretended for it are S. John 6. and the words of institution recorded by three Evangelists and S. Paul Concerning which I shall first lay this prejudice that by the confession of the Romanists themselves men learned and famous in their generations nor these places nor any else in Scripture are sufficient to prove Transubstantiation Cardinal Cajetan affirms that there is in Scripture nothing of force or necessity to infer Transubstantiation out of the words of institution and that the words seclusâ Ecclesiae authoritate setting aside the decree of the Church are not sufficient This is reported by Suarez but he says that the words of Cajetan by the command of Pius V. were left out of the Roman Edition and he adds that Cajetanus solus ex catholicis hoc docuit He only of their side taught it which is carelesly affirmed by the Jesuite for another Cardinal Bishop of Rochester John Fisher affirmed the same thing for speaking of the words of institution recorded by S. Matthew he says Neque ullum hîc verbum positum est quo probetur in nostrâ missâ veram fieri carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam There are no words set down here viz. in the words of institution by which it may be proved that in our Mass there is a true presence of the flesh and blood of Christ. To this I add a third Cardinal Bishop of Cambray de Aliaco who though he likes the opinion because it was then more common that the substance of bread does not remain after consecration yet ea non sequitur evidenter ex Scripturis it does not follow evidently from Scripture 2. To these three Cardinals I add the concurrent testimony of two famous Schoolmen Johannes Duns Scotus who for his rare wit and learning became a Father of a Scholastical faction in the Schools of Rome affirms Non extare locum ullum Scripturae tam expressum ut sine Ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat Transubstantiationem admittere There is no place of Scripture so express that without the declaration of the Church it can evidently compel us to admit Transubstantiation And Bellarmine himself says that it is not altogether improbable since it is affirmed à doctissimis acutissimis hominibus by most learned and most acute men The Bishop of Eureux who was afterwards Cardinal Richelieu not being well pleased with Scotus in this question said that Scotus had only considered the testimonies of the Fathers cited by Gratian Peter Lombard Aquinas and the Schoolmen before him Suppose that But these testimonies are not few and the witty man was as able to understand their opinion by their words as any man since and therefore we have the in-come of so many Fathers as are cited by the Canon-Law the Master of the sentences and his Scholars to be partly a warrant and none of them to contradict the opinion of Scotus who neither believed it to be taught evidently in Scripture nor by the Fathers 3. The other Schoolman I am to reckon in this account is Gabriel Biel. Quomodo ibi sit corpus Christi an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantiâ accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canone Bibliae How the body of Christ is there whether by conversion of any thing into it or without conversion it begin to be the body of Christ with the bread the accidents and the substance of the bread still remaining is not found expressed in the Canon of the Bible Hitherto I could add the concurrent Testimony of Ocham in 4. q. 6. of Johonnes de Bassolis who is called Doctor Ordinatissimus but that so much to the same purpose is needless and the thing is confessed to be the opinion of many writers of their own party as appears in Salmeron And Melchior Canus Bishop of the Canaries amongst the things not expressed in Scripture reckons the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. 4. If it be said that the Churches determination is a better interpreter of Scripture than they it
is granted But did the Church ever interpret Scripture to signifie Transubstantiation and say that by the force of the words of Scripture it was to be believed If she did not then to say she is a betrer Interpreter is to no purpose for though the Church be a better Interpreter than they yet they did not contradict each other and their sence might be the sence of the Church But if the Church before their time had expounded it against their sence and they not submit to it how do you reckon them Catholicks and not me For it is certain if the Church expounding Scripture did declare it to signifie Transubstantiation they did not submit themselves and their writings to the Church But if the Church had not in their times done it and hath done it since that is another consideration and we are left to remember that till Cajetans time that is till Luthers time the Church had not declared that Scripture did prove Transubstantiation and since that time we know who hath but not the Church Catholick 5. And indeed it had been strange if the Cardinals of Cambray de Sanctovio and of Rochester that Scotus and Biel should never have heard that the Church had declared that the words of Scripture did infer Transubstantiation And it is observable that all these lived long after the Article it self was said to be decreed in the Lateran where if the Article it self was declared yet it was not declared as from Scripture or if it was they did not believe it But it is an usual device amongst their writers to stifle their reason or to secure themselves with a submitting to the authority of their Church even against their argument and if any one speaks a bold truth he cannot escape the Inquisition unless he complement the Church and with a civility tell her that she knows better which in plain English is no otherwise than the fellow that did penance for saying the Priest lay with his wife he was forced to say Tongue thou liest though he was sure his eyes did not lie And this is that which Scotus said Transubstantiation without the determination of the Church is not evidently inferred from Scripture This I say is a complement and was only to secure the Frier from the Inquisitors or else was a direct stifling of his reason for it contains in it a great error or a worse danger For if the Article be not contained so in Scripture as that we are bound to believe it by his being there then the Church must make a new Article or it must remain as it was that is obscure and we uncompell'd and still at liberty For she cannot declare unless it be so she declares what is or what is not If what is not she declares a lie if what is then it is in Scripture before and then we are compelled that is we ought to have believed it If it be said it was there but in it self obscurely I answer then so it is still for if it was obscurely there and not only quoad nos or by defect on our part she cannot say it is plain there neither can she alter it for if she sees it plain then it was plain if it be obscure then she sees it obscurely for she sees it as it is or else she sees it not at all and therefore must declare it to be so that is probably obscurely peradventure but not evidently compellingly necessarily 6. So that if according to the Casuists especially of the Jesuits order it be lawful to follow the opinion of any one probable Doctor here we have five good men and true besides Ocham Bassolis and Melchior Canus to acquit us from our search after this question in Scripture But because this although it satisfies me will not satisfie them that follow the decree of Trent we will try whether this doctrine be to be found in Scripture Pede pes SECT III. Of the sixth Chapter of Saint Johns Gospel 1. IN this Chapter it is earnestly pretended that our blessed Saviour taught the mystery of Transubstantiation but with some different opinions for in this question they are divided all the way some reckon the whole Sermon as the proof of it from verse 33 to 58 though how to make them friends with Bellarmine I understand not who says Constat it is known that the Eucharist is not handled in the whole Chapter for Christ there discourses of Natural bread the miracle of the loaves of Faith and of the Incarnation is a great part of the Chapter Solùm igitur quaestio est de illis verbis Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi vitâ de sequentibus fere ad finem capitis The question only is concerning those words verse 51. The bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world and so forward almost until the end of the Chapter The reason which is pretended for it is because Christ speaks in the future and therefore probably relates to the institution which was to be next year but this is a trifle for the same thing in effect is before spoken in the future tense and by way of promise Labour not for the meat that perisheth but for that meat that endureth to everlasting life which the Son of man shall give unto you The same also is affirmed by Christ under the expression of water S. John 4.14 He that drinketh the water which I shall give him shall never thirst but the water which I shall give him shall be a fountain of water springing up to life eternal The places are exactly parallel and yet as this is not meant of Baptism so neither is the other of the Eucharist but both of them of spiritual sumption of Christ. And both of them being promises to them that shall come to Christ and be united to him it were strange if they were not expressed in the future for although they always did signifie in present and in sensu currenti yet because they are of never failing truth to express them in the future is most proper that the expectation of them may appertain to all Ad natos natorum qui nascentur ab illis But then because Christ said The bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the World to suppose this must be meant of a corporal manducation of his flesh in the holy Sacrament is as frivolous as if it were said that nothing that is spoken in the future can be figurative and if so then let it be considered what is meant by these To him that overcomes I will give to eat of the tree of life and To him that overcomes I will give to eat of the hidden Manna These promises are future but certainly figurative and therefore why it may not be so here and be understood of eating Christ spiritually or by faith I am certain there is no cause
to have been the established resolved doctrine of the Primitive Church this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not necessary Because although no argument can prove it Catholick but a consent yet if some as learned as holy as orthodox do dissent it is enough to prove it not to be Catholick As a proposition is not universal if there be one or three or ten exceptions but to make it universal it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must take in all 2. Secondly None of the Fathers speak words exclusive of our way because our way contains a Spiritual sence which to be true our adversaries deny not but say it is not sufficient but there ought to be more But their words do often exclude the way of the Church of Rome and are not so capable of an answer for them 3. Thirdly When the saying of a Father is brought out of which his sence is to be drawn by argument and discourse by two or three remote uneasie consequences I do not think it fit to take notice of those words either for or against us because then his meaning is as obscure as the article it self and therefore he is not fit to be brought in interpretation of it And the same also is the case when the words are brought by both sides for then it is a shrewd sign the Doctor is not well to be understood or that he is not fit in those words to be an umpire and of this Cardinal Perron is a great example who spends a volume in folio to prove S. Austin to be of their side in this article or rather not to be against them 4. Fourthly All those testimonies of Fathers which are as general indefinite and unexpounded as the words of Scripture which are in question must in this question pass for nothing and therefore when the Fathers say that in the sacrament is the body and blood of Christ that there is the body of our Lord that before consecration it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meer bread but after consecration it is verily the body of Christ truly his flesh truly his blood these and the like sayings are no more than the words of Christ This is my body and are only true in the same sence of which I have all this while been giving an account that is by a change of condition of sanctification and usage We believe that after consecration and blessing it is really Christs body which is verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lords Supper And upon this account we shall find that many very many of the authorities of the Fathers commonly alledged by the Roman Doctors in this question will come to nothing For we speak their sence and in their own words the Church of England expressing this mystery frequently in the same forms of words and we are so certain that to eat Christs body Spiritually is to eat him really that there is no other way for him to be eaten really than by Spiritual manducation 5. Fifthly when the Fathers in this question speak of the change of the Symbols in the holy Sacrament they sometimes use the words of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Church conversion mutation transition migration transfiguration and the like in the Latin but they by these do understand accidental and Sacramental conversions not proper natural and substantial Concerning which although I might refer the Reader to see it highly verified in David Blondels familiar elucidations of the Eucharistical controversie yet a shorter course I can take to warrant it without my trouble or his and that is by the confession of a Jesuit and of no mean same or learning amongst them The words of Suarez whom I mean are these Licet antiqui Pp. c. Although the ancient Fathers have used divers names yet all they are either general as the names of conversion mutation transition or else they are more accommodated to an accidental change as the name of Transfiguration and the like only the name of Transelementation which Theophylact did use seems to approach nearer to signify the propriety of this mystery because it signifies a change even of the first elements yet that word is harder and not sufficiently accommodate For it may signify the resolution of one element into another or the resolution of a mixt body into the elements He might have added another sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Transelementation For Theophylact uses the same word to express the change of our bodies to the state of incorruption and the change that is made in the faithful when they are united unto Christ. But Suarez proceeds But Transubstantiation does most properly and appositely signifie the passage and conversion of the whole substance into the whole substance So that by this discourse we are quitted and made free from the pressure of all those authorities of the Fathers which speak of the mutation conversion transition or passage or transelementation transfiguration and the like of the bread into the body of Christ these do or may only signifie an accidental change and come not home to their purpose of Transubstantiation and it is as if Suarez had said the words which the Fathers use in this question make not for us and therefore we have made a new word for our selves and obtruded it upon all the world But against it I shall only object an observation of Bellarmine that is not ill The liberty of new words is dangerous in the Church because out of new words by little and little new things arise while it is lawful to coyn new words in divine affairs 6. Sixthly To which I add this that if all the Fathers had more unitedly affirmed the conversion of the bread into Christs body than they have done and had not explicated their meaning as they have done indeed yet this word would so little have help'd the Roman cause that it would directly have overthrown it For in their Transubstantiation there is no conversion of one thing into another but a local succession of Christs body into the place of bread A change of the Vbi was not used to be called a substantial conversion But they understood nothing of our present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were not used to such curious nothings and intricate falshoods and artificial nonsence with which the Roman Doctors troubled the world in this question But they spake wholly another thing and either they did affirm a substantial change or they did not If they did not then it makes nothing for them or against us But if they did mean a proper substantial change then for so much as it comes to it makes against us but not for them for they must mean a change of one substance into another by conversion or a change of substances by substitution of one in the place of another If they meant the latter then it was no conversion of one into another and then they expressed not what they meant
merits or at least of satisfactions more than they can spend or themselves do need and out of these the Church hath made her a treasure a kind of poor-mans box and out of this a power to take as much as they list to apply to the poor souls in Purgatory who because they did not satisfie for their venial sins or perform all their penances which were imposed or which might have been imposed and which were due to be paâ—d to God for the temporal pains reserved upon them after he had forgiven them the guilt of their deadly sins are forc'd sadly to roar in pains not inferiour to the pains of Hell excepting only that that they are not eternal That this is the true state of their Article of Indulgences we appeal to Bellarmine Now concerning their new foundation of Indulgences the first stone of it was laid by Pope Clement the sixth in his extravagant Vnigenitus de poenitentiis remissionibus A. D. 1350. This Constitution was published fifty years after the first Jubilee and was a new device to bring in Customers to Rome at the second Jubilee which was kept in Rome in this Popes time What ends of profit and interest it serv'd we are not much concern'd to enquire but this we know that it had not yet passed into a Catholick Doctrine for it was disputed against by Franciscus de Mayronis and Durandus not long before this extravagant and that it was not rightly form'd to their purposes till the stirs in Germany rais'd upon the occasion of Indulgences made Leo the tenth set his Clerks on work to study the point and make something of it But as to the thing it self it is so wholly new so meerly devis'd and forged by themselves so newly created out of nothing from great mistakes of Scripture and dreams of shadows from Antiquity that we are to admonish our charges that they cannot reasonably expect many sayings of the Primitive Doctors against them any more than against the new fancies of the Quakers which were born but yesterday That which is not cannot be numbred and that which was not could not be confuted But the perfect silence of Antiquity in this whole matter is an abundant demonstration that this new nothing was made in the later Laboratories of Rome For as Durandus said the Holy Fathers Ambrose Hillary Hierom Augustine speak nothing of Indulgences And whereas it is said that Saint Gregory six hundred years after Christ gave Indulgences at Rome in the stations Magister Angularis who lived about two hundred years since sayes he never read of any such any where and it is certain there is no such thing in the Writings of Saint Gregory nor in any History of that Age or any other that is authentick and we could never see any History pretended for it by the Roman Writers but a Legend of Ledgerus brought to us the other day by Surius which is so ridiculous and weak that even their own parties dare not avow it as true story and therefore they are fain to make use of Thomas Aquinas upon the Sentences and Altisiodorensis for story and record And it were strange that if this power of giving Indulgences to take off the punishment reservâ—d by God after the sin is pardoned were given by Christ to his Church that no one of the ancient Doctors should tell any thing of it insomuch that there is no one Writer of authority and credit not the more ancient Doctors we have named nor those who were much later Rupertus Tuitiensis Anselm or Saint Bernard ever took notice of it but it was a Doctrine wholly unknown to the Church for about one thousand two hundred years after Christ and Cardinal Cajetan told Pope Adrian the sixth that to him that readeth the Decretals it plainly appears that an Indulgence is nothing else but an absolution from that penance which the Confessor hath imposed and therefore can be nothing of that which is now adayes pretended True it is that the Canonical penances were about the time of Burchard lessen'd and alter'd by commutations and the ancient Discipline of the Church in imposing penances was made so loose that the Indulgence was more than the Imposition and began not to be an act of mercy but remisness and absolution without amends It became a Trumpet and a Leavy for the Holy War in Pope Vrban the Seconds time for he gave a plenary Indulgence and remission of all sins to them that should go and fight against the Sarazens and yet no man could tell how much they were the better for these Indulgences for concerning the value of Indulgences the complaint is both old and doubtful said Pope Adrian and he cites a famous gloss which tells of four Opinions all Catholick and yet vastly differing in this particular but the Summa Angelica reckons seven Opinions concerning what that penalty is which is taken off by Indulgences No man could then tell and the Point was but in the infancy and since that they have made it what they please but it is at last turn'd into a Doctrine and they have devised new Propositions as well as they can to make sence of it and yet it is a very strange thing a solution not an absolution it is the distinction of Bellarmine that is the sinner is let to go free without punishment in this World or in the world to come and in the end it grew to be that which Christendom could not suffer a heap of Doctrines without Grounds of Scripture or Catholick Tradition and not only so but they have introduc'd a way of remitting sins that Christ and his Apostles taught not a way destructive to the repentance and remission of sins which was preached in the Name of Jesus it brought into the Church false and fantastick hopes a hope that will make men asham'd a hope that does not glorifie the merits and perfect satisfaction of Christ a doctrine expresly dishonourable to the full and free pardon given us by God through Jesus Christ a practice that supposes a new bunch of Keyes given to the Church besides that which the Apostles receiv'd to open and shut the Kingdom of Heaven a Doctrine that introduces pride among the Saints and advances the opinion of their works beyond the measures of Christ who taught us That when we have done all that is commanded we are unprofitable servants and therefore certainly cannot supererogate or do more than what is infinitely recompenc'd by the Kingdom of Glory to which all our doings and all our sufferings are not worthy to be compar'd especially since the greatest Saint cannot but say with David Enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight no flesh living can be justified It is a practice that hath turn'd Penances into a Fair and the Court of Conscience into a Lombard and the labours of Love into the labours of Pilgrimages superstitious and useless wandrings from place to
opinor aut quam rarissimum de purgatorio sermonem inveniet Sed neque Latini simul omnes at sensim hujus rei veritatem conceperunt He that pleases let him read the Commentaries of the Old Greeks and as I suppose he shall find none or very rare mention or speech of Purgatory But neither did all the Latins at one time but by little and little conceive the truth of this thing And again Aliquandin incognitum fuit serò cognitum Vniversae Ecclesiae Deinde quibusdam pedetentim partim ex Scripturis partim ex revelationibus creditum fuit For somewhile it was unknown it was but lately known to the Catholick Church Then it was believ'd by some by little and little partly from Scripture partly from revelations And this is the goodly ground of the doctrine of Purgatory founded no question upon tradition Apostolical delivered some hundreds of years indeed after they were dead but the truth is because it was forgotten by the Apostles and they having so many things in their heads when they were alive wrote and said nothing of it therefore they took care to send some from the dead who by new revelations should teach this old doctrine This we may conjecture to be the equivalent sence of the plain words of Roffensis But the plain words are sufficient without a Commentary Now for Polydore Virgil his own words can best tell what he says The words I have put into the Margent because they are many the sence of them is this 1. He finds no use of Indulgences before the stations of S. Gregory the consequent of that is that all the Latin Fathers did not receive them before S. Gregorie's time and therefore they did not receive them all together 2. The matter being so obscure Polydore chose to express his sence in the testimony of Roffensis 3. From him he affirms that the use of Indulgences is but new and lately received amongst Christians 4. That there is no certainty concerning their original 5. They report that amongst the Ancient Latins there was some use of them But it is but a report for he knows nothing of it before S. Gregorie's time and for that also he hath but a mere report 6. Amongst the Greeks it is not to this day believ'd 7. As long as there was no care of Purgatory no man look'd after Indulgences because if you take away Purgatory there is no need of Indulgences 8. That the use of Indulgences began after men had a while trembled at the torments of Purgatory This if I understand Latin or common sence is the doctrine of Polydore Virgil and to him I add also the testimony of Alphonsus à Castro De Purgatorio fere nulla mentio potissimum apud Graecos scriptores Qua de causa usque hodiernum diem purgatorium non est à Graecis creditum The consequent of these things is this If Purgatory was not known to the Primitive Church if it was but lately known to the Catholick Church if the Fathers seldom or never make mention of it If in the Greek Church especially there was so great silence of it that to this very day it is not believed amongst the Greeks then this Doctrine was not an Apostolical Doctrine not Primitive nor Catholick but an Innovation and of yesterday And this is of it self besides all these confessions of their own parties a suspicious matter because the Church of Rome does establish their Doctrine of Purgatory upon the Ancient use of the Church of praying for the dead But this consequence of theirs is wholly vain because all the Fathers did pray for the dead yet they never prayed for their deliverance out of Purgatory nor ever meant it To this it is thus objected It is confessed that they prayed for them that God would shew them a mercy Now Mark well If they be in Heaven they have a mercy the sentence is given for Eternal happiness If in Hell they are wholly destitute of mercy unless there be a third place where mercy can be shewed them I have according to my order mark'd it well but find nothing in it to purpose For though the Fathers prayed for the souls departed that God would shew them mercy yet it was that God would shew them mercy in the day of judgment In that formidable and dreadful day then there is need of much mercy unto us saith Saint Chrysostom And methinks this Gentleman should not have made use of so pitiful an Argument and would not if he had consider'd that Saint Paul prayed for Onesiphorus That God would shew him a mercy in that day that is in the day of Judgment as generally Interpreters Ancient and Modern do understand it and particularly Saint Chrysostom now cited The faithful departed are in the hands of Christ as soon as they die and they are very well and the souls of the wicked are where it pleases God to appoint them to be tormented by a fearful expectation of the revelation of the day of judgment but Heaven and Hell are reserved till the day of judgment and the Devils themselves are reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day saith Saint Jude and in that day they shall be sentenc'd and so shall all the wicked to everlasting fire which as yet is but prepar'd for the Devil and his Angels for ever But is there no mercy to be shewed to them unless they be in Purgatory Some of the Ancients speak of visitation of Angels to be imparted to the souls departed and the hastening of the day of judgment is a mercy and the avenging of the Martyrs upon their Adversaries is a mercy for which the Souls under the Altar pray saith Saint John in the Revelation and the Greek Fathers speak of a fiery trial at the day of judgment through which every one must pass and there will be great need of mercy And after all this there is a remission of sins proper to this world when God so pardons that he gives the grace of repentance that he takes his judgments off from us that he gives us his holy Spirit to mortifie our sins that he admits us to work in his Laboratory that he sustains us by his power and promotes us by his Grace and stands by us favourably while we work out our salvation with fear and trembling and at last he crowns us with perseverance But at the day of Judgment there shall be a pardon of sins that will crown this pardon when God shall pronounce us pardon'd before all the world and when Christ shall actually and presentially rescue us from all the pains which our sins have deserved even from everlasting pain And that 's the final pardon for which till it be accomplished all the faithful do night and day pray incessantly although to many for whom they do pray they friendly believe that it is now certain that they shall then be glorified Saepissime petuntur illa quae
Innocentius Nec invenitur ubi Ecclesia istam veritatem determinet solenniter Neither is it found where the Church hath solemnly determin'd it And for his own particular though he was carried into captivity by the symbol of Pope Innocent 3. for which by that time was pretended the Lateran Council yet he himself said that before that Council it was no article of faith and for this thing Bellarmine reproves him and imputes ignorance to him saying that it was because he had not read the Roman Council under Greg. 7. nor the consent of the Fathers And to this purpose I quoted Henriquez saying that Scotus saith the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not ancient the Author of the Letter denies that he saith any such thing of Scotus But I desire him to look once more and my Margent will better direct him What the opinion of Durandus was in this Question if these Gentlemen will not believe me let them believe their own friends But first let it be consider'd what I said viz. that he maintain'd viz. in disputation that even after consecration the very matter of bread remain'd 2. That by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held 3. That nevertheless it is possible it should be so 4. That it is no contradiction that the matter of bread should remain and yet it be Christs body too 5. That this were the easier way of solving the difficulties That all this is true I have no better argument than his own words which are in his first question of the eleventh distinction in quartum num 11. n. 15. For indeed the case was very hard with these learned men who being pressed by authority did bite the file and submitted their doctrine but kept their reason to themselves and what some in the Council of Trent observed of Scotus was true also of Durandus and divers other Schoolmen with whom it was usual to deny things with a kind of courtesie And therefore Durandus in the places cited though he disputes well for his opinion yet he says the contrary is modus tenendus de facto But besides that his words are as I understand them plain and clear to manifest his own hearty perswasion yet I shall not desire to be believed upon my own account for fear I be mistaken but that I had reason to say it Henriquez shall be my warrant Durandus dist qu. 3. ait esse probabile sed absque assertione c. He saith it is probable but without assertion that in the Eucharist the same matter of bread remains without quantity And a little after he adds out of Cajetan Paludanus and Soto that this opinion of Durandus is erroneous but after the Council of Trent it seems to be heretical And yet he says it was held by Aegidius and Euthymius who had the good luck it seems to live and die before the Council of Trent otherwise they had been in danger of the inquisition for heretical pravity But I shall not trouble my self further in this particular I am fully vindicated by Bellarmine himself who spends a whole Chapter in the confutation of this error of Durandus viz. that the matter of bread remains he endeavours to answer his arguments and gives this censure of him Itaque sententia Durandi hâ—retica est Therefore the sentence of Durandus is heretical although he be not to be called a heretick because he was ready to acquiesce in the judgment of the Church So Bellarmine who if he say true that Durandus was ready to submit to the judgment of the Church then he does not say true when he says the Church before his time had determined against him but however that I said true of him when I imputed this opinion to him Bellarmine is my witness Thus you see I had reason for what I said and by these instances it appears how hardly and how long the doctrine of Transubstantiation was before it could be swallowed But I remember that Salmeron tells of divers who distrusting of Scripture and reason had rather in this point rely upon the tradition of the Fathers and therefore I descended to take from them this armour in which they trusted And first to ease a more curious inquiry which in a short dissuasive was not convenient I us'd the abbreviature of an adversaries confession For Alphonsus à Castro confess'd that in Ancient writers there is seldome any mention made of Transubstantiation one of my adversaries says this is not spoken of the thing but of the name of Transubstantiation but if à Castro meant this only of the word he spake weakly when he said that the name or word was seldom mention'd by the Ancients 1. Because it is false that it was seldom mention'd by the Ancients for the word was by the Ancient Fathers never mention'd 2. Because there was not any question of the word where the thing was agreed and therefore as this saying so understood had been false so also if it had been true it would have been impertinent 3. It is but a trifling artifice to confess the name to be unknown and by that means to insinuate that the thing was then under other names It is a secret cosenage of an unwary Reader to bribe him into peace and contentedness for the main part of the Question by pleasing him in that part which it may be makes the biggest noise though it be less material 4. If the thing had been mentioned by the Ancients they need not would not ought not to have troubled themselves and others by a new word to have still retained the old proposition under the old words would have been less suspicious more prudent and ingenious but to bring in a new name is but the cover for a new doctrine and therefore S. Paul left an excellent precept to the Church to avoid prophanas vocum novitates the prophane newness of words that is it is fit that the mysteries revealed in Scripture should be preached and taught in the words of the Scripture and with that simplicity openness easiness and candor and not with new and unhallowed words such as is that of Transubstantiation 5. A Castro did not speak of the name alone but of the thing also de transubstantiatione panis in Corpus Christi of the Transubstantiation of bread into Christs body of this manner of conversion that is of this doctrine now doctrines consist not in words but things however his last words are faint and weak and guilty for being convinc'd of the weakness of his defence of the thing he left to himself a subterfuge of words But let it be how it will with à Castro whom I can very well spare if he will not be allowed to speak sober sence and as a wise man should we have better and fuller testimonies in this affair That the Fathers did not so much as touch the matter or thing of Transubstantiation said the Jesuits in prison as is
in two parts of the body which is one and whole and so is but in one place and consequently is but one soul. But if the feet were parted from the body by other bodies intermedial then indeed if there were but one soul in feet and head the Gentleman had spoken to the purpose But here these wafers are two intire wafers separate the one from the other bodies intermedial put between and that which is here is not there and yet of each of them it is affirm'd that it is Christs body that is of two wafers and of two thousand wafers it is at the same time affirm'd of every one that it is Christs body Now if these wafers are substantially not the same not one but many and yet every one of these many is substantially and properly Christs body then these bodies are many for they are many of whom it is said every one distinctly and separately and in it self is Christs body 2. For his comparing the presence of Christ in the wafer with the presence of God in Heaven it is spoken without common wit or sence for does any man say that God is in two places and yet be the same one God Can God be in two places that cannot be in one Can he be determin'd and number'd by places that sills all places by his presence or is Christs body in the Sacrament as God is in the world that is repletivè filling all things alike spaces void and spaces full and there where there is no place where the measures are neither time nor place but only the power and will of God This answer besides that it is weak and dangerous is also to no purpose unless the Church of Rome will pass over to the Lutherans and maintain the Ubiquity of Christs body Yea but S. Austin says of Christ Ferebatur in manibus suis c. he bore himself in his own hands and what then Then though every wafer be Christs body yet the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies for then there would be two bodies of Christ when he carried his own body in his hands To this I answer that concerning S. Austins mind we are already satisfied but that which he says here is true as he spake and intended it for by his own rule the similitudes and figures of things are oftentimes called by the name of those things whereof they are similitudes Christ bore his own body in his own hands when he bore the Sacrament of his body for of that also it is true that it is truly his body in a Sacramental spiritual and real manner that is to all intents and purposes of the holy Spirit of God According to the words of S. Austin cited by P. Lombard We call that the body of Christ which being taken from the fruits of the Earth and consecrated by mystick prayer we receive in memory of the Lords Passion which when by the hands of men it is brought on to that visible shape it is not sanctified to become so worthy a Sacrament but by the spirit of God working invisibly If this be good Catholick doctrine and if this confession of this article be right the Church of England is right but then when the Church of Rome will not let us alone in this truth and modesty of confession but impose what is unknown in Antiquity and Scripture and against common sence and the reason of all the world she must needs be greatly in the wrong But as to this question I was here only to justifie the Disswasive I suppose these Gentleman may be fully satisfied in the whole inquiry if they please to read a book I have written on this subject intirely of which hitherto they are pleas'd to take no great notice SECT IV. Of the Half-Communion WHEN the French Embassador in the Council of Trent A. D. 1561. made instance for restitution of the Chalice to the Laity among other oppositions the Cardinal S. Angelo answered that he would never give a cup full of such deadly poison to the people of France instead of a medicine and that it was better to let them die than to cure them with such remedies The Embassador being greatly offended replied that it was not fit to give the name of poison to the blood of Christ and to call the holy Apostles poisoners and the Fathers of the Primitive Church and of that which followed for many hundred years who with much spiritual profit have ministred the cup of that blood to all the people this was a great and a publick yet but a single person that gave so great offence One of the greatest scandals that ever were given to Christendom was given by the Council of Constance which having acknowledged that Christ administred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine and that in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds yet the Council not only condemns them as hereticks and to be punished accordingly who say it is unlawful to observe the custom and law of giving it in one kind only but under pain of excommunication forbids all Priests to communicate the people under both kinds This last thing is so shameful and so impious that A. L. directly denies that there is any such thing which if it be not an argument of the self-conviction of the man and a resolution to abide in his error and to deceive the people even against his knowledge let all the world judge for the words of the Councils decree as they are set down by Carranza at the end of the decree are these Item praecipimus sub pâ—â—na excommunicationis quod nullus presbyter communicet populum sub utraque specie panis vini I need say no more in this affair To affirm it necessary to do in the Sacraments what Christ did is called heresie and to do so is punished with excommunication But we who follow Christ hope we shall communicate with him and then we are well enough especially since the very institution of the Sacrament in both kinds is a sufficient Commandment to minister and receive it in both kinds For if the Church of Rome upon their supposition only that Christ did barely institute confession do therefore urge it as necessary it will be a strange partiality that the confessed institution by Christ of the two Sacramental species shall not conclude them as necessary as the other upon an Unprov'd supposition And if the institution of the Sacrament in both kinds be not equal to a command then there is no command to receive the bread or indeed to receive the Sacrament at all but it is a mere act of supererogation that the Priests do it at all and an act of favour and grace that they give even the bread it self to the Laity But besides this it is not to be endur'd that the Church of Rome only binds her subjects to observe the decree of abstaining from the cup
jure humano and yet they shall be bound jure Divino to believe it to be just and specially since the causes of so scandalous an alteration are not set down in the decree of any Council and those which are set down by private Doctors besides that they are no record of the Church they are ridiculous weak and contemptible But as Granatensis said in the Council of Trent this affair can neither be regulated by Scripture nor traditions for surely it is against both but by wisdom wherein because it is necessary to proceed to circumspection I suppose the Church of Rome will always be considering whether she should give the chalice or no and because she will not acknowledge any reason sufficient to give it she will be content to keep it away without reason And which is worse the Church of Rome excommunicates those Priests that communicate the people in both kinds but the Primitive Church excommunicates them that receive but in one kind It is too much that any part of the Church should so much as in a single instance administer the Holy Sacrament otherwise than it is in the institution of Christ there being no other warrant for doing the thing at all but Christs institution and therefore no other way of learning how to do it but by the same institution by which all of it is done And if there can come a case of necessity as if there be no wine or if a man cannot endure wine it is then a disputable matter whether it ought or not to be omitted for if the necessity be of Gods making he is suppos'd to dispence with the impossibility But if a man alters what God appointed he makes to himself a new institution for which in this case there can be no necessity nor yet excuse But suppose either one or other yet so long as it is or is thought a case of necessity the thing may be hopefully excus'd if not actually justified and because it can happen but seldom the matter is not great let the institution be observed always where it can But then in all cases of possibility let all prepared Christians be invited to receive the body and blood of Christ according to his institution or if that be too much at least let all them that desire it be permitted to receive it in Christs way But that men are not suffered to do so that they are driven from it that they are called heretick for saying it is their duty to receive it as Christ gave it and appointed it that they should be excommunicated for desiring to communicate in Christs blood by the symbol of his blood according to the order of him that gave his blood this is such a strange piece of Christianity that it is not easie to imagine what Antichrist can do more against it unless he take it all away I only desire those persons who are here concerned to weigh well the words of Christ and the consequents of them He that breaketh one of the least of my Commandments and shall teach men so and what if he compel men so shall be called the least in the Kingdom of God To the Canon last mentioned it is answered that the Canon speaks not of receiving the sacrament by the communicants but of the consummating the sacrifice by the Priest To this I reply that it is true that the Canon was particularly directed to the Priests by the title which themselves put to it but the Canon medles not with the consecrating or not consecrating in one kind but of receiving for that is the title of the Canon The Priest ought not to receive the body of Christ without the blood and in the Canon it self Comperimus autem quod quidam sumpta corporis sacri portione à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant By which it plainly appears that the consecration was intire for it was calix sacrati cruoris the consecrated chalice from which out of a fond superstition some Priests did abstain the Canon therefore relates to the sumption or receiving not the sacrificing as these men love to call it or consecration and the sanction it self speaks indeed of the reception of the Sacrament but not a word of it as it is in any sence a sacrifice aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur So that the distinction of sacrament and sacrifice in this Question will be of no use to the Church of Rome For if Pope Gelasius for it was his Canon knew nothing of this distinction it is vainly applied to the expounding of his words but if he did know of it then he hath taken that part which is against the Church of Rome for of this mystery as it is a sacrament Gelasius speaks which therefore must relate to the people as well as to the Priest And this Canon is to this purpose quoted by Cassander And 2. no man is able to shew that ever Christ appointed one way of receiving to the Priest and another to the people The law was all one the example the same the Rule is simple and Uniform and no appearance of 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 do 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 blood 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 sacerdos 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 Frier 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
he reveres And this liberty I now take is no other than hath been used by the severest Votaries in that Church where to dissent is death I mean in the Church of Rome I call to witness those disputations and contradictory assertions in the matter of some articles which are to be observed in Andreas Vega Dominicus à Soto Andradius the Lawyers about the Question of divorces and clan destine contracts the Divines about predetermination and about this very article of Original sin as relating to the Virgin Mary But blessed be God we are under the Discipline of a prudent charitable and indulgent Mother and if I may be allowed to suppose that the article means no more in short than the office of Baptism explicates at large I will abide by the trial there is not a word in the Rubricks or Prayers but may very perfectly consist with the Doctrine I deliver But though the Church of England is my Mother and I hope I shall ever live and at last die in her Communion and if God shall call me to it and enable me I will not refuse to die for her yet I conceive there is something most highly considerable in that saying Call no man Master upon earth that is no mans explication of her articles shall prejudice my affirmative if it agrees with Scripture and right reason and the doctrine of the Primitive Church for the first 300 years and if in any of this I am mistaken I will most thankfully be reproved and most readily make honourable amends But my proposition I hope is not built upon the sand and I am most sure it is so zealous for Gods honour and the reputation of his justice and wisdom and goodness that I hope all that are pious unless they labour under some prejudice and prepossession will upon that account be zealous for it or at least confess that what I intend hath in it more of piety than their negative can have of certainty That which is strain'd and held too hard will soonest break He that stoops to the authority yet twists the article with truth preserves both with modesty and Religion One thing more I fear will trouble some persons who will be apt to say to me as Avitus of Vienna did to Faustus of Rhegium Hic quantum ad frontem pertinent quasi abstinentissimam vitam professus non secretam crucem sed publicam vanitatem c. That upon pretence of great severity as if I were exact or could be I urge others to so great strictness which will rather produce despair than holiness Though I have in its proper place taken care concerning this and all the way intend to rescue men from the just causes and in-lets to despair that is not to make them do that against which by preaching a holy life I have prepar'd the best defensative yet this I shall say here particularly That I think this objection is but a mere excuse which some men would make lest they should believe it necessary to live well For to speak truth men are not very apt to despair they have ten thousand ways to flatter themselves and they will hope in despight of all arguments to the contrary In all the Scripture there is but one example of a despairing man and that was Judas who did so not upon the stock of any fierce propositions preach'd to him but upon the load of his foul sin and the pusillanimity of his spirit But they are not to be numbred who live in sin and yet sibi suaviter benedicunt think themselves in a good condition and all them that rely upon those false principles which I have reckoned in this Preface and confuted in the Book are examples of it But it were well if 〈◊〉 would distinguish the sin of despair from the misery of despair Where God hath 〈◊〉 us no warrant to hope there to despair is no sin it may be a punishment and to hope 〈◊〉 may be presumption I shall end with the most charitable advice I can give to any of my erring Brethren 〈◊〉 no man be so vain as to use all the wit and arts all the shifts and devices of the world 〈…〉 may behold to enjoy the pleasure of his sin since it may bring him into that condition that it 〈◊〉 be disputed whether he shall despair or no. Our duty is to make our calling and electioâ—â— sure which certainly cannot be done but by a timely and effective repentance But they that will be confident in their health are sometimes pusillanimous in their sickness presumptious in sin and despairing in the day of their calamity Cognitio de incorrupto Dei judicio in multis dormit sed excitari solet circa mortem said Plato For though 〈◊〉 give false sentences of the Divine judgments when their temptations are high and their 〈◊〉 pleasant yet about the time of their death their understanding and notices are awakened 〈◊〉 they see what they would not see before and what they cannot now avoid Thus I have given account of the design of this Book to you Most Reverend Fatâ—â—â— and Religious Brethren of this Church and to your judgment I submit what I have here discoursed of as knowing that the chiefest part of the Ecclesiastical office is conversant about Repentance and the whole Government of the Primitive Church was almost wholly imployed in ministring to the orders and restitution and reconciliation of penitents and therefore you are not only by your ability but by your imployment and experiences the most competent Judges and the aptest promoters of those truths by which Repentance is made most perfect and unreprovable By your Prayers and your Authority and your Wisdom I hope it will be more and more effected that the strictnesses of a holy life be thought necessary and that Repentance may be no more that trifling little piece of duty to which the errors of the late Schools of learning and the desires of men to be deceiv'd in this article have reduc'd it I have done thus much of my part toward it and I humbly desire it may be accepted by God by you and by all good men JER TAYLOR VNVM NECESSARIVM OR The DOCTRINE and PRACTICE OF REPENTANCE CHAP. I. The Foundation and Necessity of Repentance SECT I. Of the indispensable Necessity of Repentance in remedy to the unavoidable transgressing the Covenant of Works IN the first entercourse with Man God made such a Covenant as he might justly make out of his absolute dominion and such as was agreeable with those powers which he gave us and the instances in which obedience was demanded For 1. Man was made perfect in his kind and God demanded of him perfect obedience 2. The first Covenant was the Covenant of Works that is there was nothing in it but Man was to obey or die but God laid but one command upon him that we find the Covenant was instanced but in one precept In that he fail'd and therefore he was lost
and there is none begotten who hath not committed sin He says their meaning cannot extend to Christ for he was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 born to sin but he is natura ad peccandum natus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by nature born to sin who by the choice of his own will is author to himself to do what he list whether it be good or evil The following words are eaten out by time but upon this ground whatever he said of Infants must needs have been to better purposes than is usually spoken of in this Article 2. Heirs of wrath signifies persons liable to punishment heirs of death It is an usual expression among the Hebrews So sons of death in the holy Scriptures are those that deserve death or are condemned to die Thus Judas Iscariot is called The son of perdition and so is that saying of David to Nathan The man that hath done this shall surely die In the Hebrew it is He is the son of death And so were those Ephesians children or sons of wrath before their conversion that is they had deserv'd death 3. By nature is here most likely to be meant that which Galen calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an acquisite nature that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 customs and evil habits And so Suidas expounds the word in this very place not only upon the account of Grammar and the use of the word in the best Authors but also upon an excellent reason His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Apostle says we were by nature children of wrath he means not that which is the usual signification of nature for then it were not their fault but the fault of him that made them such but it means an abiding and vile habit a wicked and a lasting custom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle Custom is like Nature For often and always are not far asunder Nature is always Custom is almost always To the same sence are those words of Porphyry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The ancients who lived likest to God and were by nature the best living the best life were a golden generation 4. By nature means not by birth and natural extraction or any original derivation from Adam in this place for of this these Ephesians were no more guilty than every one else and no more before their conversion than after but by nature signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the Greek Scholiast renders it really beyond opinion plenè omnino intirely or wholly so the Syriack and so S. Hierome affirms that the Ancients did expound it and it is agreeable to the usage of the same phrase Gal. 4.8 Ye did service to them which by nature are no Gods that is which really are none And as these Ephesians were before their conversion so were the Israelites in the days of their rebellion a wicked stubborn people insomuch that they are by the Prophet called children of transgression a seed of falsehood But these and the like places have no force at all but what they borrow from the ignorance of that sence and acceptation of the word in those languages which ought to be the measure of them 51. But it is hard upon such mean accounts to reckon all children to be born enemies of God that is bastards and not sons heirs of Hell and damnation full of sin and vile corruption when the holy Scriptures propound children as imitable for their pretty innocence and sweetness and declare them rather heirs of Heaven than Hell In malice be children and unless we become like to children we shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and their Angels behold the face of their Father which is in Heaven Heaven is theirs God is their Father Angels are appropriated to them they are free from malice and imitable by men These are better words than are usually given them and signifie that they are beloved of God not hated design'd for Heaven and born to it though brought thither by Christ and by the Spirit of Christ not born for Hell that was prepared for the Devil and his Angels not for innocent babes This does not call them naturally wicked but rather naturally innocent and is a better account than is commonly given them by imputation of Adams sin 52. But not concerning children but of himself S. Paul complains that his nature and his principles of action and choice are corrupted There is a law in my members bringing me into captivity to the law of sin and many other words to the same purpose all which indeed have been strangely mistaken to very ill purposes so that the whole Chapter so as is commonly expounded is nothing but a temptation to evil life and a patron of impiety Concerning which I have in the next Chapter given account and freed it from the common abuse But if this were to be understood in the sence which I there reprove yet it is to be observed in order to the present Question that S. Paul does not say This law in our members comes by nature or is derived from Adam A man may bring a law upon himself by vicious custom and that may be as prevalent as Nature and more because more men have by Philosophy and illuminated Reason cured the disposition of their nature than have cured their vicious habits * Add to this that S. Paul puts this uneasiness and this carnal law in his members wholly upon the account of being under the law and of his not being under Christ not upon the account of Adams prevarication as is plain in the analogy of the whole Chapter 53. As easie also it is to understand these words of S. Paul without prejudice to this Question The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God neither indeed can he know them meaning as is supposed that there is in our natures an ignorance and averseness from spiritual things that is a contrariety to God But it is observable that the word which the Apostle uses is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not properly rendred Natural but Animal and it certainly means a man that is guided only by natural Reason without the revelations of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Suidas An animal man that is a Philosopher or a rational man such as were the Greek and Roman Philosophers upon the stock and account of the learning of all their Schools could never discern the excellencies of the Gospel mysteries as of God incarnate Christ dying Resurrection of the body and the like For this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Animal and another word used often by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Carnal are opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiritual and are states of evil or of imperfection in which while a man remains he cannot do the work of God For animality which is a relying upon natural principles without revelation is a state privatively oppos'd to the
and whose eternal interest I do so much desire may be secured and advanced Now my Lord I had thought I had been secured in the Article not only for the truth of the Doctrine but for the advantages and comforts it brings I was confident they would not because there was no cause any men should be angry at it For it is strange to me that any man should desire to believe God to be more severe and less gentle That men should be greedy to find out inevitable ways of being damned that they should be unwilling to have the vail drawn away from the face of Gods goodness and that they should desire to see an angry countenance and be displeased at the glad tidings of the Gospel of peace It is strange to me that men should desire to believe that their pretty Babes which are strangled at the gates of the womb or die before Baptism should for ought they know die eternally and be damned and that themselves should consent to it and to them that invent Reasons to make it seem just They might have had not only pretences but reasons to be troubled if I had represented God to be so great a hater of Mankind as to damn millions of millions for that which they could not help or if I had taught that their infants might by chance have gone to Hell and as soon as ever they came for life descend to an eternal death If I had told them evil things of God and hard measures and evil portions to their children they might have complained but to complain because I say God is just to all and merciful and just to infants to fret and be peevish because I tell them that nothing but good things are to be expected from our good God is a thing that may well be wondred at My Lord I take a great comfort in this that my doctrine stands on that side where Gods justice and goodness and mercy stand apparently and they that speak otherwise in this Article are forced by convulsions and violences to draw their doctrine to comply with Gods justice and the reputation of his most glorious Attributes And after great and laborious devices they must needs do it pitifully and jejunely but I will prejudice no mans opinion I only will defend my own because in so doing I have the honour to be an advocate for God who will defend and accept me in the simplicity and innocency of my purposes and the profession of his truth Now my Lord I find that some believe this doctrine ought not now to have been published Others think it not true The first are the wise and few the others are the many who have been taught otherwise and either have not leisure or abilities to make right judgments in the question Concerning the first I have given what accounts I could to that excellent man the Lord Bishop of Sarum who out of his great piety and prudence and his great kindness to me was pleased to call for accounts of me Concerning the other your Lordship in great humility and in great tenderness to those who are not perswaded of the truth of this doctrine hath called upon me to give all those just measures of satisfaction which I could be obliged to by the interest of any Christian vertue In obedience to this pious care and prudent counsel of your Lordship I have published these ensuing Papers hoping that God will bless them to the purposes whither they are designed however I have done all that I could and all that I am commanded and all that I was counselled to And as I submit all to Gods blessing and the events of his providence and Oeconomy so my doctrine I humbly submit to my holy Mother the Church of England and rejoyce in any circumstances by which I can testifie my duty to her and my obedience to your Lordship CHAP. VII A further EXPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF Original Sin SECT I. Of the Fall of Adam and the Effects of it upon Him and Vs. IT was well said of S. Augustine in this thing though he said many others in it less certain Nihil est peccato Originali ad praedicandum noâ—ius nihil ad intelligendum secretius The article we all confess but the manner of explicating it is not an apple of knowledge but of contention Having therefore turned to all the ways of Reason and Scripture I at last apply my self to examine how it was affirmed by the first and best Antiquity For the Doctrine of Original sin as I have explicated it is taxed of Singularity and Novelty and though these words are very freely bestowed upon any thing we have not learned or consented to and that we take false measures of these Appellatives reckoning that new that is but renewed and that singular that is not taught vulgarly or in our own Societies Yet I shall easily quit the proposition from these charges and though I do confess and complain of it that the usual affirmations of Original sin are a popular error yet I will make it appear that it is no Catholick doctrine that it prevailed by prejudice and accidental authorities but after such prevailing it was accused and reproved by the Greatest and most Judicious persons of Christendom And first that judgment may the better be given of the Allegations I shall bring from authority I shall explicate and state the Question that there may be no impertinent allegations of Antiquity for both sides nor clamours against the persons interested in either perswasion nor any offence taken by error and misprision It is not therefore intended nor affirmed that there is no such thing as Original sin for it is certain and affirmed by all Antiquity upon many grounds of Scripture That Adam sinned and his sin was Personally his but Derivatively ours that is it did great hurt to us to our bodies directly to our souls indirectly and accidentally 2. For Adam was made a living soul the great representative of Mankind and the beginner of a temporal happy life and to that purpose he was put in a place of temporal happiness where he was to have lived as long as he obeyed God so far as he knew nothing else being promised to him or implied but when he sinned he was thrown from thence and spoiled of all those advantages by which he was enabled to live and be happy This we find in the story the reasonableness of the parts of which teaches us all this doctrine To which if we add the words of S. Paul the case is clear The first Adam was made a living soul The last Adam was made a quickning Spirit Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual but that which is natural and afterwards that which is spiritual The first man is of the earth earthly the second man is the Lord from Heaven As is the earthly such are they that are earthly and as is the Heavenly such are they also that are Heavenly and as we have born
state not at all fitted for Heaven but too much disposed to the ways that lead to Hell For even in innocent persons in Christ himself it was a hinderance or a state of present exclusion from Heaven he could not enter into the second Tabernacle that is into Heaven so long as the first tabernacle of his body was standing the body of sin that is of infirmity he was first to lay aside and so by dying unto sin once he entred into Heaven according to the other words of S. Paul Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God it is a state of differing nature and capacity Christ himself could not enter thither till he had first laid that down as the Divine Author to the Hebrews rarely and mysteriously discourses 9. This is the whole summ of Original sin which now I have more fully explicated than formerly it being then only fitting to speak of so much of it as to represent it to be a state of evil which yet left in us powers enough to do our duty and to be without excuse which very thing the Belgick Confession in this Article acknowledges and that not God but our selves are authors of our eternal death in case we do perish But now though thus far I have admitted as far as can be consonant to Antiquity and not unreasonable though in Scripture so much is not expressed yet now I must be more restrained and deny those superadditions to this Doctrine which the ignorance or the fancy or the interest or the laziness of men have sewed to this Doctrine SECT II. Adam's Sin is in us no more than an imputed Sin and how it is so 10. ORIGINAL sin is not our sin properly not inherent in us but is only imputed to us so as to bring evil effects upon us For that which is inherent in us is a consequent only of Adam's sin but of it self no sin for there being but two things affirmed to be the constituent parts of Original sin the want of Original righteousness and concupiscence neither of these can be a sin in us but a punishment and a consequent of Adam's sin they may be For the case is thus One half of Christians that dispute in this Article particularly the Roman Schools say that Concupiscence is not a sin but a consequent of Adam's sin The other half of Christians I mean in Europe that is the Protestants generally say That the want of original righteousness is a consequent of Adam's sin but formally no sin The effect of these is this That it is not certain amongst the Churches that either one or the other is formally our sin or inherent in us and we cannot affirm either without crossing a great part of Christendom in their affirmative There have indeed been attempts made to reconcile this difference and therefore in the conference at Wormes and in the book offered at Ratisbon to the Emperor and in the interim it self they jumbled them both together saying that Originale peccatum est carentia justitiae originalis cum concupiscentiâ But the Church of England defines neither but rather inclines to believe that it consists in concupiscence as appears in the explication of the Article which I have annexed But because she hath not determined that either of them is formally a sin or inherent in us I may with the greater freedom discourse concerning the several parts The want of original righteousness is not a thing but the privation of a thing and therefore cannot be inherent in us and therefore if it be a sin at all to us it can only be such by imputation But neither can this be imputed to us as a sin formally because if it be at all it is only a consequent or punishment of Adam's sin and unavoidable by us For though Scotus is pleased to affirm that there was an obligation upon humane nature to preserve it I doubt not but as he intended it he said false Adam indeed was tied to it for if he lost it for himself and us then he only was bound to keep it for himself and us for we could not be obliged to keep it unless we had received it but he was and because he lost it we also missed it that is are punished and feel the evil effects of it But besides all this the matter of Original righteousness is a thing framed in the School Forges but not at all spoken of in Scripture save only that God made man upright that is he was brought innocent into the world he brought no sin along with him he was created in the time and stature of reason and choice he entred upon action when his reason was great enough to master his passion all which we do not It is that which as Prosper describes it made a man expertem peccati capacem Dei for by this is meant that he had grace and helps enough if he needed any besides his natural powers which we have not by nature but by another dispensation 11. Add to all this that they who make the want of ORIGINAL Righteousness to be a sin formally in us when they come to explicate their meaning by material or intelligible events tell us it is an aversion from God that is in effect a turning to the creature and differs no otherwise from concupiscence than going from the West directly does from going directly to the East that is just nothing It follows then that if concupiscence be the effect of Adam's sin then so must the want of original righteousness because they are the same thing in real event and if that be no sin in us because it was only the punishment of his sin then neither is the other a sin for the same reason But then for Concupiscence that this is no sin before we consent to it appears by many testimonies of Antiquity and of S. Austin himself Quantum ad nos attinet sine peccato semper essemus donec sanaretur hoc malum si nunquam consentiremus ad malum Lib. 2. ad Julianum And it is infinitely against reason it should for in infants the very actions and desire of concupiscence are no sins therefore much less is the principle if the little emanations of it in them be innocent although there are some images of consent much more is that principle innocent before any thing of consent at all is applied to it By the way I cannot but wonder at this that the Roman Schools affirming the first motions of concupiscence to be no sin because they are involuntary and not consented to by us but come upon us whether we list or no yet that they should think Original sin to be a sin in us really and truly which it is certain is altogether as involuntary and unchosen as concupiscence But I add this also that concupiscence is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin if it were then it would follow that if Adam had not sinned we should have no concupiscence that is no
I explicate it is wholly against the Pelagians for they wholly deny Original sin affirming that Adam did us no hurt by his sin except only by his example These Men are also followed by the Anabaptists who say that death is so natural that it is not by Adam's fall so much as made actual The Albigenses were of the same opinion The Socinians affirm that Adam's sin was the occasion of bringing eternal death into the World but that it no way relates to us not so much as by imputation But I having shewed in what sence Adam's sin is imputed to us am so far either from agreeing with any of these or from being singular that I have the acknowledgment of an adversary even of Bellarmine himself that it is the doctrine of the Church and he laboriously endeavours to prove that Original sin is meerly ours by imputation Add to this that he also affirms that when Zuinglius says that Original sin is not properly a sin but metonymically that is the effect of one sin and the cause of many that in so saying he agrees with the Catholicks Now these being the main affirmatives of my discourse it is plain that I am not alone but more are with me than against me Now though he is pleased afterwards to contradict himself and say it is veri nominis peccatum yet because I understood not how to reconcile the opposite parts of a contradiction or tell how the same thing should be really a sin and yet be so but by a figure onely how it should be properly a sin and yet onely metonymically and how it should be the effect of sin and yet that sin whereof it is an effect I confess here I stick to my reason and my proposition and leave Bellarmine and his Catholicks to themselves 25. And indeed they that say Original sin is any thing really any thing besides Adam's sin imputed to us to certain purposes that is effecting in us certain evils which dispose to worse they are according to the nature of error infinitely divided and agree in nothing but in this that none of them can prove what they say Anselme Bonaventure Gabriel and others say that Original sin is nothing but a want of Original righteousness Others say that they say something of truth but not enough for a privation can never be a positive sin and if it be not positive it cannot be inherent and therefore that it is necessary that they add indignitatem habendi a certain unworthiness to have it being in every man that is the sin But then if it be asked what makes them unworthy if it be not the want of Original righteousness and that then they are not two things but one seemingly and none really they are not yet agreed upon an answer Aquinas and his Scholars say Original sin is a certain spot upon the soul. Melancthon considering that concupiscence or the faculty of desiring or the tendency to an object could not be a sin fancied Original sin to be an actual depraved desire Illyrious says it is the substantial image of the Devil Scotus and Durandus say it is nothing but a meer guilt that is an obligation passed upon us to suffer the evil effects of it which indeed is most moderate of all the opinions of the School and differs not at all or scarce discernibly from that of Albertus Pighius and Catharinus who say that Original sin is nothing but the disobedience of Adam imputed to us But the Lutherans affirm it to be the depravation of humane nature without relation to the sin of Adam but a vileness that is in us The Church of Rome of late sayes that besides the want of Original righteousness with an habitual aversion from God it is a guiltiness and a spot but it is nothing of Concupiscence that being the effect of it only But the Protestants of Mr. Calvin's perswasion affirm that concupiscence is the main of it and is a sin before and after Baptism but amongst all this infinite uncertainty the Church of England speaks moderate words apt to be construed to the purposes of all peaceable men that desire her communion 26. Thus every one talks of Original sin and agree that there is such a thing but what it is they agree not and therefore in such infinite Variety he were of a strange imperious spirit that would confine others to his particular fancy For my own part now that I have shown what the Doctrine of the purest Ages was what uncertainty there is of late in the Question what great consent there is in some of the main parts of what I affirm and that in the contrary particulars Men cannot agree I shall not be ashamed to profess what company I now keep in my opinion of the Article no worse Men than Zuinglius Stapulensis the great Erasmus and the incomparable Hugo Grotius who also says there are multi in Gallia qui eandem sententiam magnis same argumentis tuentur many in France which with great argument defend the same sentence that is who explicate the article intirely as I do and as S. Chrysostome and Theodoret did of old in compliance with those H. Fathers that went before them with whom although I do not desire to erre yet I suppose their great names are guard sufficient against prejudices and trifling noises and an amulet against the Names of Arminian Socinian Pelagian and I cannot tell what Monsters of appellatives But these are but Boyes tricks and arguments of Women I expect from all that are wiser to examine whether this Opinion does not or whether the contrary does better explicate the truth with greater reason and to better purposes of Piety let it be examined which best glorifies God and does honour to his justice and the reputation of his Goodness which does with more advantage serve the interest of holy living and which is more apt to patronize carelesness and sin These are the measures of wise and good men the other are the measures of Faires and Markets where fancy and noise do govern SECT VI. An Exposition of the Ninth Article of the Church of England concerning Original sin according to Scripture and Reason 27. AFter all this it is pretended and talked of that my Doctrine of Original sin is against the Ninth Article of the Church of England and that my attempt to reconcile them was ineffective Now although this be nothing to the truth or falshood of my Doctrine yet it is much concerning the reputation of it Concerning which I cannot be so much displeased that any man should so undervalue my reason as I am highly content that they do so very much value her Authority But then to acquit my self and my Doctrine from being contrary to the Article all that I can do is to expound the Article and make it appear that not only the words of it are capable of a fair construction but also that it is reasonable they should be expounded so
that but it takes away the formality of it it is not a punishment to such but a Condition of Nature as it is to Infants For that even to them also there is no condemnation for their Original Concupiscence is Undeniable and demonstratively Certain upon this account Because even the actual desires and little Concupiscences of children are innocent and therefore much more their natural tendencies and inclinations For if a principle be criminal if a faculty be a sin much more are the acts of that faculty also a sin but if these be innocent then much more is that 40. Yet the Apostle does confess that Concupiscence and Lust hath of it self the Nature of sin Of it self that is it is in the whole kind to be reproved it is not a sin to all persons not to unconsenting persons for if it be no sin to them that resist then neither is it a sin to them that cannot consent But it hath the Nature of sin that is it is the material part of sin a principle and root from whence evil may spring according to S. Austins words Modo quodam loquendi vocatur peccatum quod peccato factum est peccati si vicerit facit reum S. Aug. lib. 1. de nup. Concup c. 23. Just as if a Man have a Natural thirst it may tempt him and is apt to incline him to drunkenness if he be of a sanguine disposition it disposes him to lust if cholerick to anger and is so much a sin as the fuel is a part of the fire but because this can be there where damnation shall not enter this Nature of sin is such as does not make a proper Guiltiness for it is a contradiction to say the sin remains and the guilt is taken away For he that hath a sin is guilty of punishment for that is he is liable to it if God pleases he may pardon if he please but if he pardons he takes away the sin For in the justified no sin can be inherent or habitual Quomodo justificati sanctificati sumus si peccatum aliquod in nobis relinquitur Hieron ad Oceanum If Concupiscence be an inherent sin in us before baptism it must either be taken away by baptism or imputed to us after baptism for if the malice remains the guilt cannot go away for God will by no means justifie the remaining sinner 41. These things I have chose to say and publish because I find that the usual doctrines about Original sin are not only false and presum'd without any competent proof but because as they are commonly believ'd they are no friends to piety but pretences of idleness and dishonourable to the reputation of Gods goodness and justice for which we ought to be very zealous when a greater indifference would better become us in the matter of our opinion or the doctrine of our sect and therefore it is not to be blam'd in me that I move the thoughts of men in the proposition for it is not an useless one but hath its immediate effects upon the Honour of God and the next upon the lives of men And therefore this hath in it many degrees of necessary doctrine and the fruits of it must needs do more than make recompence for the trouble I put them to in making new inquiries into that doctrine concerning which they were so long at ease But if men of a contrary judgment can secure the interests and advantages of piety and can reconcile their usual doctrines of Original sin with Gods justice and goodness and truth I shall be well pleased with it and think better of their doctrine than now I can But until that be done they may please to consider that there is in Holy Scripture no sign of it nor intimation that at the day of Judgment Christ shall say to any Go ye cursed sons of Adam into everlasting fire because your Father sinn'd and though I will pardon millions of sins which men did chuse and delight in yet I will severely exact this of you which you never did chuse nor could delight in this I say is not likely to be in the event of things and in the wise and merciful dispensation of God especially since Jesus Christ himself so far as appears never spake one word of it there is not any tittle of it in all the four Gospels it is a thing of which no warning was or could be given to any of Adams children it is not mention'd in the old Testament for that place of David in the 51. Psalm Clemens Alexandrinus and others of the Fathers snatch from any pretence to it and that one time where it is spoken of in the New Testament there is nothing said of it but that it is imputed to us to this purpose only that it brought in death temporal and why such Tragedies should be made of it and other places of Scripture drawn by violence to give countenance to it and all the systemes of Divinity of late made to lean upon this Article which yet was never thought to be fundamental or belonging to the foundation was never put into the Creed of any Church but is made the great support of new and strange propositions even of the fearful decree of absolute reprobation and yet was never consented in or agreed upon what it was or how it can be conveyed and was in the late and modern sence of it as unknown to the Primitive Church as it was to the Doctors of the Jews that is wholly unknown to them both why I say men should be so fierce in their new sence of this Article and so impatient of contradiction it is not easie to give a reasonable account For my own particular I hope I have done my duty having produced Scriptures and Reasons and the best Authority against it Qui potest capere capiat For I had a good spirit yea rather being good I came into a body undefiled Wisd. 8.19 20. CHAP. VIII Of Sins of Infirmity SECT I. 1. ALL Mankind hath for ever complain'd of their irremediable calamity their propensity to sin For though by the dictates of Nature all people were instructed in the general notices of vertue and vice right reason being our rule insomuch that the old Philosophers as Plutarch reports said that vertue was nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a disposition and force of reason And this reason having guided the wisest was form'd into laws for others yet this reason serv'd to little other purposes but to upbraid our follies and infelicities and to make our actions punishable by representing them to be unreasonable for they did certainly sin and they could no more help it than they could prevent their being sick or hungry or angry or thirsty Nature had made organs for some and senses for others and conversation and example brought in all So that if you reprov'd a Criminal he heard and understood you but could not helpt it as Laius in the Tragedy 〈◊〉
all the Sermons which were made by those whom God sent with his word in their mouths that they should live innocently or when they had sinned they should repent and be sav'd from their calamity 4. But when Christ came into the world he open'd the fountains of mercy and broke down all the banks of restraint he preach'd Repentance offer'd health gave life call'd all wearied and burthen'd persons to come to him for ease and remedy he glorified his Fathers mercies and himself became the great instrument and channel of its emanation He preach'd and commanded mercy by the example of God he made his Religion that he taught to be wholly made up of doing and receiving good this by Faith that by Charity He commanded an indefinite and unlimited forgiveness of our brother repenting after injuries done to us seventy times seven times and though there could be little question of that yet he was pleased to signifie to us that as we needed more so we should have and find more mercy at the hands of God And therefore he hath appointed a whole order of men whom he maintains at his own charges and furnishes with especial commissions and endues with a lasting power and imploys on his own errand and instructs with his own Spirit whose business is to remit and retain to exhort and to restore sinners by the means of Repentance and the word of their proper Ministery Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted that 's their Authority and their Office is to pray all men in Christs stead to be reconciled to God And after all this Christ himself labours to bring it to effect not only assisting his Ministers with the gifts of an excellent Spirit and exacting of them the account of Souls but that it may be prosperous and effectual himself intercedes in Heaven before the Throne of Grace doing for sinners the office of an Advocate and a Reconciler If any man sins we have an Advocate with the Father and he is the propitiation for all our sins and for the sins of the whole world and therefore it is not only the matter of our hopes but an Article of our Creed that we may have forgiveness of our sins by the blood of Jesus Qui nullum excepit in Christo donavit omnia God hath excepted none and therefore in Christ pardons all 5. For there is not in Scripture any Catalogue of sins set down for which Christ died and others excluded from that state of mercy All that believe and repent shall be pardon'd if they go and sin no more Deus distinctionem non facit qui misericordiam suam promisit omnibus relaxandi licentiam sacerdotibus suis sine ullâ exceptione concessit said S. Ambrose God excepts none but hath given power to his Ministers to release all absolutely all And S. Bernard argues this Article upon the account of those excellent examples which the Spirit of God hath consign'd to us in holy Scripture If Peter after so great a fall did arrive to such an eminence of sanctity hereafter who shall despair provided that he will depart from his sins For that God is ready to forgive the greatest Criminals if they repent appears in the instances of Ahab and Manasses of Mary Magdalen and S. Paul of the Thief on the Cross and the deprehended Adulteress and of the Jews themselves who after they had crucified the Lord of life were by messengers of his own invited passionately invited to repent and be purified with that blood which they had sacrilegiously and impiously spilt But concerning this who please may read S. Austin discoursing upon those words Mittet Crystallum suum sicut buccellas which saith he mystically represent the readiness of God to break and make contrite even the hearts of them that have been hardened in impiety Quo loco consistent poenitentiam agentes ibi justi non poterunt stare said the Doctors of the Jews The just and innocent persons shall not be able to stand in the same place where the penitent shall be Pacem pacem remoto propinquo ait Dominus ut sanem eum Peace to him that is afar off and to him that is near saith the Lord that I may heal him Praeponit remotum That 's their observations He that is afar off is set before the other that is he that is at great distance from God as if God did use the greater earnestness to reduce him Upon which place their gloss adds Magna est virtus eorum qui poenitentiam agunt ita ut nulla Creatura in septo illorum consistere queat So great is the vertue of them that are true penitents that no creature can stand within their inclosure And all this is far better expressed by those excellen◠words of our blessed Saviour There is joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth more than over ninety nine just persons that need no repentance 6. I have been the longer in establishing and declaring the proper foundation of this Article upon which every one can declaim but every one cannot believe it in the day of temptation because I guess what an intolerable evil it is to despair of pardon by having felt the trouble of some very great fears And this were the less necessary but that it is too commonly true that they who repent least are most confident of their pardon or rather least consider any reasons against their security but when a man truly apprehends the vileness of his sin he ought also to consider the state of his danger which is wholly upon the stock of what is past that is his danger is this that he knows not when or whether or upon what terms God will pardon him in particular But of this I shall have a more apt occasion to speak in the following periods For the present the Article in general is established upon the testimonies of the greatest certainty SECT II. Of Pardon of Sins committed after Baptism 7. BUT it may be our easiness of life and want of discipline and our desires to reconcile our pleasures and temporal satisfactions with the hopes of Heaven hath made us apt to swallow all that seems to favour our hopes But it is certain that some Christian Doctors have taught the Doctrine of Repentance with greater severity than is intimated in the premises For all the examples of pardon consign'd to us in the Old Testament are nothing to us who live under the New and are to be judged by other measures And as for those instances which are recorded in the New Testament and all the promises and affirmations of pardon they are sufficiently verified in that pardon of sins which is first given to us in Baptism and at our first Conversion to Christianity Thus when S. Stephen prayed for his persecutors and our blessed Lord himself on his uneasie death-bed of the Cross prayed for them that Crucified him it can only prove that these great sins are pardonable
is taken off by Christ and his goodness is manifest in making a new Census for us taxing and numbring us in Christ and giving us free Redemption by the blood of Jesus but yet that we ought to confess that we are liable to damnation by Adam and saved from thence by Christ that Gods justice may be glorified in that and his goodness in this but that we are still real sinners till washed in the blood of the Lamb and without God and without hopes of Heaven till then and that if this Article be thus handled the Presbyterian fancy will disappear for they can be confuted without denying Adams sin to be damnable by saying it is pardoned in Christ and in Christ all men are restored and he is the head of the Predestination for in him God looked upon us when he designed us to our final state and this say they is much for the honour of Christs Redemption To these things Madam I have much to say something I will trouble your Ladiship withal at this time that you and all that consider the particulars may see I could not do the work of God and truth if I had proceeded in that method For 1. It is observable that those wiser persons who will by no means admit that anyone is or ever shall be damned for Original sin do by this means hope to salve the justice of God by which they plainly imply that to damn us for this is hard and intolerable and therefore they suppose they have declared a remedy But then this also is to be considered if it be intolerable to damn children for the sin of Adam then it is intolerable to say it is damnable If that be not just or reasonable then this is also unjust and unreasonable for the sentence and the execution of the sentence are the same emanation and issue of justice and are to be equally accounted of For 2. I demand had it been just in God to damn all mankind to the eternal pains of Hell for Adams sin committed before they had a being or could consent to it or know of it If it could be just then any thing in the world can be just and it is no matter who is innocent or who is criminal directly and by choice since they may turn Devils in their mothers bellies and it matters not whether there be any laws or no since it is all one that there be no law and that we do not know whether there be or no and it matters not whether there be any judicial process for we may as well be damned without judgment as be guilty without action and besides all those arguments will press here which I urged in my first discourse Now if it had been unjust actually to damn us all for the sin of one it was unjust to sentence us to it for if he did give sentence against us justly he could justly have executed the sentence and this is just if that be But 3. God did put this sentence in execution for if that be true which these learned men suppose that by Adams sin we fell into a damnable condition but by Christ we are rescued from an actual damnation for it then it will follow that when he sent the holy Jesus into the world to die for us and to redeem us he satisfied his Fathers Anger for Original Sin as well as for actual he paid for our share as well as for Adams for our share of that sin which he committed as well as for those which we committed and not he he paid all the price of that as well as of this damnation and the horrible sentence was bought off and God was so satisfied that his justice had full measure for the damnation to which we stood liable God I say had full measure for all for so all men say who speak the voice of the Church in the matter of Christs satisfaction so that now although there was the goodness of God in taking the evil from us yet how to reconcile this process with his justice viz. That for the sin of another God should sentence all the world to the portion of Devils to eternal ageâ— and that he would not be reconciled to us or take off this horrible sentence without a full price to be paid to his justice by the Saviour of the world this this is it that I require may be reconciled to that Notion which we have of the Divine justice 4. If no man shall ever be damned for the sin of Adam alone then I demand whether are they born quit from the guilt or when are they quitted If they be born free I agree to it but then they were never charged with it so far as to make them liable to damnation If they be not born free when are they quitted By Baptism before or after He that says before or after must speak wholly by chance and without pretence of Scripture or tradition or any sufficient warrant and he cannot guess when it is If in Baptism he is quitted then he that dies before Baptism is still under the Sentence and what shall become of him If it be answered that God will pardon him some way or other at some time or other I reply yea but who said so For if the Scriptures have said that we are all in Adam guilty of sin and damnation and the Scriptures have told us no ways of being quit of it but by Baptism and Faith in Christ Is it not plainly consequent that till we believe in Christ or at least till in the faith of others we are baptized into Christ we are reckoned still in Adam not in Christ that is still we are under damnation and not heirs of Heaven but of wrath only 5. How can any one bring himself into a belief that none can be damned for Original sin if he be of this perswasion that it makes us liable to damnation for if you say as I say that it is against Gods justice to damn us for the fault of another then it is also against his justice to sentence us to that suffering which to inflict is injustice If you say it is believed upon this account because Christ was promised to all mankind I reply that yet all mankind shall not be saved and there are conditions required on our part and no man can be saved but by Christ and he must come to him or be brought to him or it is not told us how any one can have a part in him and therefore that will not give us the confidence is looked for If it be at last said that we hope in Gods goodness that he will take care of Innocents and that they shall not perish I answer that if they be Innocents we need not appeal to his goodness for his justice will secure them If they be guilty and not Innocents then it is but vain to run to Gods goodness which in this particular is not revealed when to condemn them is not
seems to warrant it to my understanding why may not he serve up another dish to me in the same dress and exact the same task of me to believe the contradictory And then since all the Hereticks in the world have offered to prove their Articles by the same means by which true Believers propound theirs it is necessary that some separation either of Doctrine or of persons be clearly made and that all pretences may not be admitted nor any just Allegations be rejected and yet that in some other Questions whether they be truly or falsly pretended if not evidently or demonstratively there may be considerations had to the persons of men and to the Laws of charity more then to the triumphing in any Opinion or Doctrine not simply necessary Now because some Doctrines are clearly not necessary and some are absolutely necessary why may not the first separation be made upon this difference and Articles necessary be onely urged as necessary and the rest left to men indifferently as they were by the Scripture indeterminately And it were well if men would as much consider themselves as the Doctrines and think that they may as well be deceived by their own weakness as perswaded by the Arguments of a Doctrine which other men as wise call inevident For it is a hard case that we should think all Papists and Anabaptists and Sacramentaries to be fools and wicked persons certainly among all these Sects there are very many wise men and good men as well as erring And although some zeals are so hot and their eyes so inflamed with their ardours that they do not think their Adversaries look like other men yet certainly we find by the results of their discourses and the transactions of their affairs of civil society that they are men that speak and make Syllogisms and use Reason and reade Scripture and although they do no more understand all of it then we do yet they endeavour to understand as much as concerns them even all that they can even all that concerns repentance from dead works and Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And therefore methinks this also should be another consideration distinguishing the persons for if the persons be Christians in their lives and Christians in their profession if they acknowledge the Eternall Son of God for their Master and their Lord and live in all relations as becomes persons making such professions why then should I hate such persons whom God loves and who love God who are partakers of Christ and Christ hath a title to them who dwell in Christ and Christ in them because their understandings have not been brought up like mine have not had the same Masters they have not met with the same books nor the same company or have not the same interest or are not so wise or else are wiser that is for some reason or other which I neither do understand nor ought to blame have not the same Opinions that I have and do not determine their School-Questions to the sense of my Sect or interest But now I know before-hand that those men who will endure none but their own Sect will make all manner of attempts against these purposes of charity and compliance and say I or doe I what I can will tell all their Proselytes that I preach indifferency of Religion that I say it is no matter how we believe nor what they profess but that they may comply with all Sects and doe violence to their own Consciences that they may be saved in all Religions and so make way for a colluvies of Heresies and by consequence destroy all Religion Nay they will say worse then all this and but that I am not used to their phrases and forms of declamation I am perswaded I might represent fine Tragedies before-hand And this will be such an Objection that although I am most confident I shall make it apparent to be as false and scandalous as the Objectors themselves are zealous and impatient yet besides that I believe the Objection will come where my Answers will not come or not be understood I am also confident that in defiance and incuriousness of all that I shall say some men will persist pertinaciously in the accusation and deny my conclusion in despite of me Well but however I will try And first I answer that whatsoever is against the foundation of Faith or contrary to good life and the laws of obedience or destructive to humane society and the publick and just interests of bodies politick is out of the limits of my Question and does not pretend to compliance or Toleration So that I allow no indifferency nor any countenance to those Religions whose principles destroy Government nor to those Religions if there be any such that teach ill life nor do I think that any thing will now excuse from belief of a fundamental Article except stupidity or sottishness and natural inability This alone is sufficient answer to this vanity but I have much more to say Secondly The intendment of my Discourse is that permissions should be in Questions speculative indeterminable curious and unnecessary and that men would not make more necessities then God made which indeed are not many The fault I find and seek to remedy is that men are so dogmaticall and resolute in their Opinions and impatient of others disagreeings in those things wherein is no sufficient means of union and determination but that men should let Opinions and Problems keep their own forms and not be obtruded as Axioms nor Questions in the vast collection of the systeme of Divinity be adopted into the family of Faith And I think I have reason to desire this Thirdly It is hard to say that he who would not have men put to death or punished corporally for such things for which no humane Authority is sufficient either for cognizance or determination or competent for infliction that he perswades to an indifferency when he refers to another Judicatory which is competent sufficient infallible just and highly severe No man or company of men can judge or punish our thoughts or secret purposes whilest they so remain and yet it will be unequal to say that he who owns this Doctrine preaches it lawfull to men for to think or purpose what they will And so it is in matters of doubtfull disputation such as are the distinguishing Articles of most of the Sects of Christendome so it is in matters intellectual which are not cognoscible by a secular power in matters spiritual which are to be discerned by spiritual Authority which cannot make corporal inflictions and in Questions indeterminate which are doubtfully propounded or obscurely and therefore may be in utramque partem disputed or believed for God alone must be Judge of these matters who alone is Master of our Souls and hath a dominion over humane Vnderstanding And he that says this does not say that indifferency is perswaded because God alone is judge of erring persons Fourthly No part of
saying of Saint Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The answer of a good conscience towards God For of the recitation and profession of this Creed in Baptism it is that Tertullian de resur carnis says Anima non lotione sed responsione sancitur And of this was the prayer of Hilary lib. 12. de Trinit Conserva hanc conscientiae meae vocem ut quod in regenerationis meae Symbolo baptizatus in Patre Filio Spir. S. professus sum semper obtineam And according to the rule and reason of this Discourse that it may appear that the Creed hath in it all Articles primò per se primely and universally necessary the Creed is just such an explication of that Faith which the Apostles preached viz. the Creed which St. Paul recites as contains in it all those things which entitle Christ to us in the capacities of our Law-giver and our Saviour such as enable him to the great work of redemption according to the predictions concerning him and such as engage and encourage our services For taking out the Article of Christs descent into Hell which was not in the old Creed as appears in some of the Copies I before referred to in Tertullian Ruffinus and Irenaeus and indeed was omitted in all the Confessions of the Eastern Churches in the Church of Rome and in the Nicene Creed which by adoption came to be the Creed of the Catholick Church all other Articles are such as directly constitute the parts and work of our redemption such as clearly derive the honour to Christ and enable him with the capacities of our Saviour and Lord. The rest engage our services by proposition of such Articles which are rather promises than propositions and the whole Creed take it in any of the old Forms is but an Analysis of that which St. Paul calls the word of salvation whereby we shall be saved viz. that we confess Jesus to be Lord and that God raised him from the dead by the first whereof he became our Law-giver and our Guardian by the second he was our Saviour the other things are but parts and main actions of those two Now what reason there is in the world that can inwrap any thing else within the foundation that is in the whole body of Articles simply and inseparably necessary or in the prime original necessity of Faith I cannot possibly imagine These do the work and therefore nothing can upon the true grounds of reason enlarge the necessity to the inclosure of other Articles 9. Now if more were necessary than the Articles of the Creed I demand why was it made the Characteristick note of a Christian from a Heretick or a Jew or an Infidel or to what purpose was it composed Or if this was intended as sufficient did the Apostles or those Churches which they founded know any thing else to be necessary If they did not then either nothing more is necessary I speak of matters of meer belief or they did not know all the will of the Lord and so were unfit Dispensers of the mysteries of the Kingdom or if they did know more was necessary and yet would not insert it they did an act of publick notice and consign'd it to all Ages of the Church to no purpose unless to beguile credulous people by making them believe their faith was sufficient having tried it by that touch-stone Apostolical when there was no such matter 10. But if this was sufficient to bring men to heaven then why not now If the Apostles admitted all to their Communion that believed this Creed why shall we exclude any that preserve the same intire Why is not our faith of these Articles of as much efficacy for bringing us to heaven as it was in the Churches Apostolical Who had guides more infallible that might without errour have taught them superstructures enough if they had been necessary and so they did But that they did not insert them into the Creed when they might have done it with as much certainty as these Articles makes it clear to my understanding that other things were not necessary but these were that whatever profit and advantages might come from other Articles yet these were sufficient and however certain persons might accidentally be obliged to believe much more yet this was the one and only foundation of Faith upon which all persons were to build their hopes of Heaven this was therefore necessary to be taught to all because of necessity to be believed by all So that although other persons might commit a delinquency in genere morum if they did not know or did not believe much more because they were obliged to further disquisitions in order to other ends yet none of these who held the Creed intire could perish for want of necessary faith though possibly he might for supine negligence or affected ignorance or some other fault which had influence upon his opinions and his understanding he having a new supervening obligation ex accidente to know and believe more 11. Neither are we oblig'd to make these Articles more particular and minute than the Creed For since the Apostles and indeed our blessed Lord himself promised heaven to them who believed him to be the Christ that was to come into the World and that he who believes in him should be partaker of the resurrection and life eternal he will be as good as his word yet because this Article was very general and a complexion rather than a single proposition the Apostles and others our Fathers in Christ did make it more explicite though they have said no more than what lay entire and ready form'd in the bosom of the great Article yet they made their extracts to great purpose and absolute sufficiency and therefore there needs no more deductions or remoter consequences from the first great Article than the Creed of the Apostles For although whatsoever is certainly deduced from any of these Articles made already so explicite is as certainly true and as much to be believed as the Article it self because ex veris possunt nil nisi vera sequi yet because it is not certain that our deductions from them are certain and what one calls evident is so obscure to another that he believes it is false it is the best and only safe course to rest in that explication the Apostles have made because if any of these Apostolical deductions were not demonstrable evidently to follow from that great Article to which salvation is promised yet the authority of them who compil'd the Symbol the plain description of the Articles from the words of Scriptures the evidence of reason demonstrating these to be the whole foundation are sufficient upon great grounds of reason to ascertain us but if we go farther besides the easiness of being deceived we relying upon our own discourses which though they may be true and then bind us to follow them but yet no more than when they only seem truest yet they cannot make
toy in respect of the excellent blessings of peace and charity it were good that Alexander and Arius should leave contending keep their opinions to themselves ask each other forgiveness and give mutual toleration This is the substance of Constantine's letter and it contains in it much reason if he did not undervalue the Question but it seems it was not then thought a question of Faith but of nicety of dispute they both did believe one God and the holy Trinity Now then that he afterward called the Nicene Council it was upon occasion of the vileness of the men of the Arian part their eternal discord and pertinacious wrangling and to bring peace into the Church that was the necessity and in order to it was the determination of the Article But for the Article it self the Letter declares what opinion he had of that and this Letter was by Socrates called a wonderful exhortation full of grave and sober counsels and such as Hosius himself who was the messenger pressed with all earnestness with all the skill and Authority he had 27. I know the opinion the world had of the Article afterward is quite differing from this censure given of it before and therefore they have put it into the Creed I suppose to bring the world to unity and to prevent Sedition in this Question and the accidental blasphemies which were occasioned by their curious talkings of such secret mysteries and by their illiterate resolutions But although the Article was determined with an excellent spirit and we all with much reason profess to believe it yet it is another consideration whether or no it might not have been better determined if with more simplicity and another yet whether or no since many of the Bishops who did believe this thing yet did not like the nicety and curiosity of expressing it it had not been more agreeable to the practice of the Apostles to have made a determination of the Article by way of Exposition of the Apostles Creed and to have lest this in a rescript for record to all posterity and not to have enlarged the Creed with it for since it was an Explication of an Article of the Creed of the Apostles as Sermons are of places of Scripture it was thought by some that Scripture might with good profit and great truth be expounded and yet the Expositions not put into the Canon or go for Scripture but that left still in the naked Original simplicity and so much the rather since that Explication was further from the foundation and though most certainly true yet not penn'd by so infallible a spirit as was that of the Apostles and therefore not with so much evidence as certainty And if they had pleased they might have made use of an admirable precedent to this and many other great and good purposes no less than of the blessed Apostles whose Symbol they might have imitated with as much simplicity as they did the Expressions of Scripture when they first composed it For it is most considerable that although in reason every clause in the Creed should be clear and so inopportune and unapt to variety of interpretation that there might be no place left for several sences or variety of Expositions yet when they thought fit to insert some mysteries into the Creed which in Scripture were expressed in so mysterious words that the last and most explicite sence would still be latent yet they who if ever any did understood all the sences and secrets of it thought it not fit to use any words but the words of Scripture particularly in the Articles of Christs descending into Hell and sitting at the right hand of God to shew us that those Creeds are best which keep the very words of Scripture and that Faith is best which hath greatest simplicity and that it is better in all cases humbly to submit than curiously to enquire and pry into the mystery under the cloud and to hazard our Faith by improving our knowledge If the Nicene Fathers had done so too possibly the Church would never have repented it 28. And indeed the experience the Church had afterwards shewed that the Bishops and Priests were not satisfied in all circumstances nor the schism appeased nor the persons agreed nor the Canons accepted nor the Article understood nor any thing right but when they were overborn with Authority which Authority when the scales turned did the same service and promotion to the contrary 29. But it is considerable that it was not the Article or the thing it self that troubled the disagreeing persons but the manner of representing it For the five Dissenters Eusebius of Nicomedia Theognis Maris Theonas and Secundus believed Christ to be very God of very God but the clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they derided as being perswaded by their Logick that he was neither of the substance of the Father by division as a piece of a lump nor derivation as children from their Parents nor by production as buds from trees and no body could tell them any other way at that time and that made the fire to burn still And that was it I said if the Article had been with more simplicity and less nicety determined charity would have gained more and faith would have lost nothing And we shall find the wisest of them all for so Eusebius Pamphilus was esteemed published a Creed or Confession in the Synod and though he and all the rest believed that great mystery of Godliness God manifested in the flesh yet he was not fully satisfied nor so soon of the clause of one substance till he had done a little violence to his own understanding for even when he had subscribed to the clause of one substance he does it with a protestation that heretofore he never had been acquainted nor accustomed himself to such speeches And the sence of the word was either so ambiguous or their meaning so uncertain that Andreus Fricius does with some probability dispute that the Nicene Fathers by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did mean Patris similitudinem non essentiae unitatem Sylva 4. c. 1. And it was so well understood by personages disinterested that when Arius and Euzoius had confessed Christ to be Deus verbum without inserting the clause of one substance the Emperour by his Letter approved of his Faith and restored him to his Countrey and Office and the Communion of the Church And a long time after although the Article was believed with nicety enough yet when they added more words still to the mystery and brought in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying there were three hypostases in the holy Trinity it was so long before it could be understood that it was believed therefore because they would not oppose their Superiours or disturb the peace of the Church in things which they thought could not be understood in so much that Saint Hierom writ to Damascus in these words Discerne si placet obsecro non timebo
not become a precedent to others lest the inconveniences of multiplying more Articles upon a great pretence of reason as then make the act of the Nicene Fathers in straightning Prophesying and enlarging the Creed become accidentally an inconvenience The first restraint although if it had been complained of might possibly have been better considered of yet the inconvenience is not visible till it comes by way of precedent to usher in more It is like an arbitrary power which although by the same reason it take six pence from the subject it may take a hundred pound and then a thousand and then all yet so long as it is within the first bounds the inconvenience is not so great but when it comes to be a precedent or argument for more then the first may justly be complained of as having in it that reason in the principle which brought the inconvenience in the sequel and we have seen very ill consequences from innocent beginnings 34. And the inconveniences which might possibly arise from this precedent those wise Personages also did foresee and therefore although they took liberty in Nice to add some Articles or at least more explicitely to declare the first Creed yet they then would have all the world to rest upon that and go no farther as believing that to be sufficient Saint Athanasius declares their opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Faith which the Fathers there confessed was sufficient for the refutation of all impiety and the establishment of all Faith in Christ and true Religion And therefore there was a famous Epistle written by Zeno the Emperour called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Epistle of reconciliation in which all disagreeing interests are entreated to agree in the Nicene Symbol and a promise made upon that condition to communicate with all other Sects adding withal that the Church should never receive any other Symbol than that which was composed by the Nicene Fathers And however Honorius was condemned for a Monothelite yet in one of the Epistles which the sixth Synod alledged against him viz. the second he gave them counsel that would have done the Church as much service as the determination of the Article did for he advised them not to be curious in their disputings nor dogmatical in their determinations about that Question and because the Church was not used to dispute in that Question it were better to preserve the simplicity of Faith than to ensnare mens consciences by a new Article And when the Emperour Constantius was by his Faction engaged in a contrary practice the inconvenience and unreasonableness was so great that a prudent Heathen observed and noted it in this character of Constantius Christianam religionem absolutam simplicem N. B. anili superstitione confudit In quâ scrutandâ perplexiùs quà m in componendâ gratiùs excitavit dissidia quae progressa fusiùs aluit concertatione verborum dum ritum omnem ad suum trahere conatur arbitrium 35. And yet men are more led by Example than either by Reason or by Precept for in the Council of Constantinople one Article de novo integro was added viz. I believe one Baptism for the remission of sins and then again they were so confident that that Confession of Faith was so absolutely intire and that no man ever after should need to add any thing to the integrity of Faith that the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus pronounced Anathema to all those that should add any thing to the Creed of Constantinople And yet for all this the Church of Rome in a Synod at Gentilly added the clause of Filioque to the Article of the Procession of the holy Ghost and what they have done since all the World knows Exempla non consistunt sed quamvis in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem All men were perswaded that it was most reasonable the limits of Faith should be no more enlarged but yet they enlarged it themselves and bound others from doing it like an intemperate Father who because he knows he does ill himself enjoyns temperance to his Son but continues to be intemperate himself 36. But now if I should be questioned concerning the Symbol of Athanasius for we see the Nicene Symbol was the Father of many more some twelve or thirteen Symbols in the space of an hundred years I confess I cannot see that moderate sentence and gentleness of charity in his Preface and Conclusion as there was in the Nicene Creed Nothing there but damnation and perishing everlastingly unless the Article of the Trinity be believed as it is there with curiosity and minute particularities explained Indeed Athanasius had been soundly vexed on one side and much cryed up on the other and therefore it is not so much wonder for him to be so decretory and severe in his censure for nothing could more ascertain his friends to him and dis-repute his enemies than the belief of that damnatory Appendix but that does not justifie the thing For the Articles themselves I am most heartily perswaded of the truth of them and yet I dare not say all that are not so are irrevocably damn'd because citra hoc Symbolum the Faith of the Apostles Creed is intire and he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved that is he that believeth such a belief as is sufficient disposition to be baptized that Faith with the Sacrament is sufficient for heaven Now the Apostles Creed does one why therefore do not both intitle us to the promise Besides if it were considered concerning Athanasius Creed how many people understand it not how contrary to natural reason it seems how little the Scripture says of those curiosities of Explication and how Tradition was not clear on his side for the Article it self much less for those forms and minutes how himself is put to make an answer and excuse for the Fathers speaking in excuse of the Arrians at least so seemingly that the Arrians appealed to them for trial and the offer was declin'd and after all this that the Nicene Creed it self went not so far neither in Article nor Anathema nor Explication it had not been amiss if the final judgment had been left to Jesus Christ for he is appointed Judge of all the World and he shall judge the people righteously for he knows every truth the degree of every necessity and all excuses that do lessen or take away the nature or malice of a crime all which I think Athanasius though a very good man did not know so well as to warrant such a sentence And put case the heresie there condemned be damnable as it is damnable enough yet a man may maintain an opinion that is in it self damnable and yet he not knowing it so and being invincibly led into it may go to heaven his opinion shall burn and himself be saved But however I find no opinion in Scripture called damnable but what are impious in materiâ
good For the great one of una fides unum baptisma did not conclude it to their understandings who were of the other opinion and men famous in their generations for it was no Argument that they who had been baptized by Johns Baptism should not be baptized in the name of Jesus because unus Deus unum baptisma and as it is still one Faith which a man confesseth several times and one Sacrament of the Eucharist though a man often communicates so it might be one baptism though often ministred And the unity of baptism might not be derived from the unity of the ministration but from the unity of the Religion into which they are baptized though baptized a thousand times yet because it was still in the name of the holy Trinity still into the death of Christ it might be unum baptisme Whether Saint Cyprian Firmilian and their Collegues had this discourse or no I know not I am sure they might have had much better to have evacuated the force of that Argument although I believe they had the wrong cause in hand But this is it that I say that when a Question is so undetermined in Scripture that the Arguments rely only upon such mystical places whence the best fancies can draw the greatest variety and such which perhaps were never intended by the holy Ghost it were good the Rivers did not swell higer than the Fountain and the confidence higher than the Argument and evidence for in this case there could not any thing be so certainly proved as that the disagreeing party should deserve to be condemned by a sentence of Excommunication for disbelieving it and yet they were which I wonder at so much the more because they who as it was since judg'd had the right cause had not any sufficient Argument from Scripture not so much as such mystical Arguments but did fly to the Tradition of the Church in which also I shall afterward shew they had nothing that was absolutely certain 3. I consider that there are divers places of Scripture containing in them mysteries and Questions of great concernment and yet the fabrick and constitution is such that there is no certain mark to determine whether the sence of them should be literal or figurative I speak not here concerning extrinsecal means of determination as traditive interpretations Councils Fathers Popes and the like I shall consider them afterward in their several places But here the subject matter being concerning Scripture in its own capacity I say there is nothing in the nature of the thing to determine the sence and meaning but it must be gotten out as it can and that therefore it is unreasonable that what of it self is ambiguous should be understood in its own prime sence and intention under the pain of either a sin or an Anathema I instance in that famous place from whence hath sprung that Question of Transubstantiation Hoc est corpus meum The words are plain and clear apt to be understood in the literal sence and yet this sence is so hard as it does violence to reason and therefore it is the Question whether or no it be not a figurative speech But here what shall we have to determine it What mean soever we take and to what sence you will expound it you shall be put to give an account why you expound other places of Scripture in the same case to quite contrary sences For if you expound it literally then besides that it seems to intrench upon the words of our blessed Saviour The words that I speak they are Spirit and they are life that is to be spiritually understood and it is a miserable thing to see what wretched shifts are used to reconcile the literal sence to these words and yet to distinguish it from the Capernaitical phancy but besides this why are not those other sayings of Christ expounded literally I am a Vine I am the Door I am a Rock Why do we fly to a figure in those parallel words This is the Covenant which I make between me and you and yet that Covenant was but the sign of the Covenant and why do we fly to a figure in a precept as well as in mystery and a proposition If thy right hand offend thee cut it off and yet we have figures enough to save a limb If it be said because reason tells us these are not to be expounded according to the letter This will be no plea for them who retain the literal exposition of the other instance against all reason against all Philosophy against all sense and against two or three sciences But if you expound these words figuratively besides that you are to contest against a world of prejudices you give your self the liberty which if others will use when either they have a reason or a necessity so to do they may perhaps turn all into Allegory and so may evacuate any precept and elude any Argument Well so it is that very wise men have expounded things Allegorically when they should have expounded them literally So did the famous Origen who as St. Hierom reports of him turned Paradise into an Allegory that he took away quite the truth of the Story and not only Adam was turned out of the Garden but the Garden it self out of Paradise Others expound things literally when they should understand them in Allegory so did the Ancient Papias understand Apocal. 20. Christs Millenary raign upon earth and so depressed the hopes of Christianity and their desires to the longing and expectation of temporal pleasures and satisfactions and he was followed by Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Lactantius and indeed the whole Church generally till S. Austin and S. Hierom's time who first of any whose works are extant did reprove the errour If such great spirits be deceived in finding out what kind of sences be to be given to Scriptures it may well be endured that we who sit at their feet may also tread in the steps of them whose feet could not always tread aright 7. Fourthly I consider that there are some places of Scripture that have the selfe same expressions the same preceptive words the same reason and account in all appearance and yet either must be expounded to quite different sences or else we must renounce the Communion and the charities of a great part of Christendom And yet there is absolutely nothing in the thing or in its circumstances or in its adjuncts that can determine it to different purposes I instance in those great exclusive negatives for the necessity of both Sacraments Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ c. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis c. a non introibit in regnum coelorum for both these Now then the first is urged for the absolute indispensable necessity of baptism even in Infants insomuch that Infants go to part of Hell if inculpably both on their own and their Parents part they miss of baptism for that is the
unreasonableness I will not say but the same liberty in expounding Scripture or if it be not licence taken but that the Scripture it self is so full and redundant in sences quite contrary what man soever or what company of men soever shall use this principle will certainly find such rare productions from several places that either the unreasonableness of the thing will discover the errour of the proceeding or else there will be a necessity of permitting a great liberty of judgment where is so infinite variety without limit or mark of necessary determination If the first then because an errour is so obvious and ready to our selves it will be great imprudence or tyranny to be hasty in judging others but if the latter it is it that I contend for for it is most unreasonable when either the thing it self ministers variety or that we take licence to our selves in variety of interpretations or proclaim to all the world our great weakness by our actually being deceived that we should either prescribe to others magisterially when we are in errour or limit their understandings when the thing it self affords liberty and variety SECT IV. Of the difficulty of expounding Scripture 1. THese considerations are taken from the nature of Scripture it self but then if we consider that we have no certain ways of determining places of difficulty and question infallibly and certainly but that we must hope to be saved in the belief of things plain necessary and fundamental and our pious endeavour to find out Gods meaning in such places which he hath left under a cloud for other great ends reserved to his own knowledge we shall see a very great necessity in allowing a liberty in Prophesying without prescribing authoritatively to other mens consciences and becoming Lords and Masters of their Faith Now the means of expounding Scripture are either external or internal For the external as Church Authority Tradition Fathers Councils and Decrees of Bishops they are of a distinct consideration and follow after in their order But here we will first consider the invalidity and uncertainty of all those means of expounding Scripture which are more proper and internal to the nature of the thing The great Masters of Commentaries some whereof have undertaken to know all mysteries have propounded many ways to expound Scripture which indeed are excellent helps but not infallible assistances both because themselves are but moral instruments which force not truth ex abscondito as also because they are not infallibly used and applyed 1. Sometime the sence is drawn forth by the context and connexion of parts It is well when it can be so But when there is two or three antecedents and subjects spoken of what man or what rule shall ascertain me that I make my reference true by drawing the relation to such an antecedent to which I have a mind to apply it another hath not For in a contexture where one part does not always depend upon another where things of differing natures intervene and interrupt the first intentions there it is not always very probable to expound Scripture and take its meaning by its proportion to the neighbouring words But who desires satisfaction in this may read the observation verified in S. Gregory's Morals upon Job lib. 5. c. 22. and the instances he there brings are excellent proof that this way of Interpretation does not warrant any man to impose his Expositions upon the belief and understanding of other men too confidently and magisterially 2. Secondly Another great pretence or medium is the conference of places which Illyricus calls ingens remedium foelicissimam expositionem sanctae scripturae and indeed so it is if well and temperately used but then we are beholding to them that do so for there is no rule that can constrain them to it for comparing of places is of so indefinite capacity that if there be ambiguity of words variety of sence alteration of circumstances or difference of stile amongst Divine Writers then there is nothing that may be more abused by wilful people or may more easily deceive the unwary or that may more amuse the most intelligent Observer The Anabaptists take advantage enough in this proceeding and indeed so may any one that list and when we pretend against them the necessity of baptizing all by authority of nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ spiritu they have a parallel for it and tell us that Christ will baptize us with the holy Ghost and with fire and that one place expounds the other and because by fire is not meant an Element or any thing that is natural but an Allegory and figurative expression of the same thing so also by water may be meant the figure signifying the effect or manner of operation of the holy Spirit Fire in one place and water in the other do but represent to us that Christs baptism is nothing else but the cleansing and purifying us by the holy Ghost But that which I here note as of greatest concernment and which in all reason ought to be an utter overthrow to this topick 〈◊〉 an universal abuse of it among those that use it most and when two places seem to have the same expression or if a word have a double signification because in this place it may have such a sence therefore it must because in one of the places the sence is to their purpose they conclude that therefore it must be so in the other too An instance I give in the great Question between the Socinians and the Catholicks If any place be urged in which our blessed Saviour is called God they shew you two or three where the word â—od is taken in a depressed sence for a quasi Deus as when God said to Moses Constitui te Deum Pharaonis and hence they argue because I can shew the word is used for a Deus factus therefore no argument is sufficient to prove Christ to be Deus verus from the appellative of Deus And might not another argue to the exact contrary and as well urge that Moses is Deus verus because in some places the word Deus is used pro Deo aeterno Both ways the Argument concludes impiously and unreasonably It is a fallacy à posse ad esse affirmativè because breaking of bread is sometimes used for an Eucharistical manducation in Scripture therefore I shall not from any testimony of Scripture affirming the first Christians to have broken bread together conclude that they lived hospitably and in common society Because it may possibly be eluded therefore it does not signifie any thing And this is the great way of answering all the Arguments that can be brought against any thing that any man hath a mind to defend and any man that reads any controversies of any side shall find as many instances of this vanity almost as he finds arguments from Scripture this fault was of old noted by S. Austin for then they had got the trick and
neither expressed nor involved I understand not But then if you extend the analogie of Faith further than that which is proper to the rule or Symbol of Faith then every man expounds Scripture according to the analogie of Faith but what His own Faith which Faith if it be questioned I am no more bound to expound according to the analogie of another mans Faith than he to expound according to the analogie of mine And this is it that is complained on of all sides that overvalue their own opinions Scripture seems so clearly to speak what they believe that they wonder all the world does not see it as clear as they do but they satisfie themselves with saying that it is because they come with prejudice whereas if they had the true belief that is theirs they would easily see what they see And this is very true For if they did believe as others believe they would expound Scriptures to their sence but if this be expounding according to the analogie of Faith it signifies no more than this Be you of my mind and then my arguments will seem concluding and my Authorities and Allegations pressing and pertinent And this will serve on all sides and therefore will doe but little service to the determination of Questions or prescribing to other mens consciences on any side 5. Lastly Consulting the Originals is thought a great matter to Interpretation of Scriptures But this is to small purpose For indeed it will expound the Hebrew and the Greek and rectifie Translations But I know no man that says that the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek are easie and certain to be understood and that they are hard in Latine and English The difficulty is in the thing however it be expressed the least is in the language If the Original Languages were our mother tongue Scripture is not much the easier to us and a natural Greek or a Jew can with no more reason or authority obtrude his Interpretations upon other mens consciences than a man of another Nation Add to this that the inspection of the Original is no more certain way of Interpretation of Scripture now than it was to the Fathers and Primitive Ages of the Church and yet he that observes what infinite variety of Translations of the Bible were in the first Ages of the Church as S. Hierom observes and never a one like another will think that we shall differ as much in our Interpretations as they did and that the medium is as uncertain to us as it was to them and so it is witness the great number of late Translations and the infinite number of Commentaries which are too pregnant an Argument that we neither agree in the understanding of the words nor of the sence 6. The truth is all these ways of Interpreting of Scripture which of themselves are good helps are made either by design or by our infirmities ways of intricating and involving Scriptures in greater difficulty because men do not learn their doctrines from Scripture but come to the understanding of Scripture with preconceptions and idea's of doctrines of their own and then no wonder that Scriptures look like Pictures wherein every man in the room believes they look on him only and that wheresoever he stands or how often soever he changes his station So that now what was intended for a remedy becomes the promoter of our disease and our meat becomes the matter of sickness And the mischief is the wit of man cannot find a remedy for it for there is no rule no limit no certain principle by which all men may be guided to a certain and so infallible an Interpretation that he can with any equity prescribe to others to believe his Interpretations in places of controversie or ambiguity A man would think that the memorable Prophecy of Jacob that the Scepter should not depart from Judah till Shiloh come should have been so clear a determination of the time of the Messias that a Jew should never have doubted it to have been verified in Jesus of Nazareth and yet for this so clear vaticination they have no less than twenty six Answers S. Paul and S. James seem to speak a little diversly concerning Justification by Faith and Works and yet to my understanding it is very easie to reconcile them but all men are not of my mind for Osiander in his confutation of the book which Melancthon wrote against him observes that there are twenty several opinions concerning Justification all drawn from the Scriptures by the men only of the Augustan Confession There are sixteen several opinions concerning original sin and as many definitions of the Sacraments as there are Sects of men that disagree about them 7. And now what help is there for us in the midst of these uncertainties If we follow any one Translation or any one mans Commentary what rule shall we have to chuse the right by or is there any one man that hath translated perfectly or expounded infallibly No Translation challenges such a prerogative to be authentick but the Vulgar Latine and yet see with what good success For when it was declared authentick by the Council of Trent Sixtus put forth a Copie much mended of what it was and tied all men to follow that but that did not satisfie for Pope Clement revives and corrects it in many places and still the Decree remains in a changed subject And secondly that Translation will be very unapt to satisfie in which one of their own men Isidore Clarius a Monk of Brescia found and mended eight thousand faults besides innumerable others which he says he pretermitted And then thirdly to shew how little themselves were satisfied with it divers learned men among them did new translate the Bible and thought they did God and the Church good service in it So that if you take this for your precedent you are sure to be mistaken infinitely If you take any other the Authors themselves do not promise you any security If you resolve to follow any one as far only as you see cause then you only do wrong or right by chance for you have certainty just proportionable to your own skill to your own infallibility If you resolve to follow any one whithersoever he leads we shall oftentimes come thither where we shall see our selves become ridiculous as it happened in the case of Spiridion Bishop of Cyprus who so resolved to follow his old book that when an eloquent Bishop who was desired to Preach read his Text Tu autem tolle cubile tuum ambula Spiridion was very angry with him because in his book it was tolle lectum tuum and thought it arrogance in the preacher to speak better Latine than his Translator had done And if it be thus in Translations it is far worse in Expositions Quia scil Scripturam sacram pro ipsa sui altitudine non uno eodemque sensu omnes accipium ut penè quot homines tot illic sententiae erui posse
〈◊〉 and yet there was no such Tradition but a mistake in Papias but I find it nowhere spoke against till Dionysius of Alexandria confuted Nepo's Book and converted Coracian the Egyptian from the opinion Now if a Tradition whose beginning of being called so began with a Scholar of the Apostles for so was Papias and then continued for some Ages upon the meer Authority of so famous a man did yet deceive the Church much more fallible is the pretence when two or three hundred years after it but commences and then by some learned man is first called a Tradition Apostolical And so it happened in the case of the Arrian heresie which the Nicene Fathers did confute by objecting a contrary Tradition Apostolical as Theodoret reports and yet if they had not had better Arguments from Scripture than from Tradition they would have fail'd much in so good a cause for this very pretence the Arrians themselves made and desired to be tryed by the Fathers of the first three hundred years which was a confutation sufficient to them who pretended a clear Tradition because it was unimaginable that the Tradition should leap so as not to come from the first to the last by the middle But that this trial was sometime declined by that excellent man S. Athanasius although at other times confidently and truly pretended it was an Argument the Tradition was not so clear but both sides might with some fairness pretend to it And therefore one of the prime Founders of their heresie the Heretick Arâ—emon having observed the advantage might be taken by any Sect that would pretend Tradition because the medium was plausible and consisting of so many particulars that it was hard to be redargued pretended a Tradition from the Apostles that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the Tradition did descend by a constant succession in the Church of Rome to Pope Victors time inclusively and till Zephyrinus had interrupted the series and corrupted the Doctrine which pretence if it had not had some appearance of truth so as possibly to abuse the Church had not been worthy of confutation which yet was with care undertaken by an old Writer out of whom Eusebius transcribes a large passage to reprove the vanity of the pretender But I observe from hence that it was usual to pretend to Tradition and that it was easier pretended than confuted and I doubt not but oftener done than discovered A great Question arose in Africa concerning the Baptism of Hereticks whether it were valid or no. S. Cyprian and his party appealed to Scripture Stephen Bishop of Rome and his party would be judged by custome and Tradition Ecclesiastical See how much the nearer the Question was to a determination either that probation was not accounted by S. Syprian and the Bishops both of Asia and Africk to be a good Argument and sufficient to determine them or there was no certain Tradition against them for unless one of these two doe it nothing could excuse them from opposing a known truth unless peradventure S. Cyprian Firmilian the Bishops of Galatia Cappadocia and almost two parts of the World were ignorant of such a Tradition for they knew of none such and some of them expresly denied it And the sixth general Synod approves of the Canon made in the Council of Carthage under Cyprian upon this very ground because in praedictorum praesulum locis solum secundum traditam eis consuetudinem servatus est they had a particular Tradition for Rebaptization and therefore there could be no Tradition Universal against it or if there were they knew not of it but much for the contrary and then it would be remembred that a conceal'd Tradition was like a silent Thunder or a Law not promulgated it neither was known nor was obligatory And I shall observe this too that this very Tradition was so obscure and was so obscurely delivered silently proclaimed that S. Austin who disputed against the Donatists upon this very Question was not able to prove it but by a consequence which he thought probable and credible as appears in his discourse against the Donatists The Apostles saith S. Austin prescribed nothing in this particular But this custome which is contrary to Cyprian ought to be believed to have come from their Tradition as many other things which the Catholick Church observes That 's all the ground and all the reason nay the Church did waver concerning that Question and before the decision of a Council Cyprian and others might dissent without breach of charity It was plain then there was no clear Tradition in the Question possibly there might be a custome in some Churches postnate to the times of the Apostles but nothing that was obligatory no Tradition Apostolical But this was a suppletory device ready at hand when ever they needed it and S. Austin confuted the Pelagians in the Question of Original sin by the custome of exorcism and insufflation which S. Austin said came from the Apostles by Tradition which yet was then and is now so impossible to be proved that he that shall affirm it shall gain only the reputation of a bold man and a confident 4. Secondly I consider if the report of Traditions in the Primitive times so near the Ages Apostolical was so uncertain that they were fain to aym at them by conjectures and grope as in the dark the uncertainty is much increased since because there are many famous Writers whose works are lost which yet if they had continued they might have been good records to us as Clemens Romanus Egesippus Nepos Coracion Dionysius Areopagite of Alexandria of Corinth Firmilian and many more And since we see pretences have been made without reason in those Ages where they might better have been confuted than now they can it is greater prudence to suspect any later pretences since so many Sects have been so many wars so many corruptions in Authors so many Authors lost so much ignorance hath intervened and so many interests have been served that now the rule is to be altered and whereas it was of old time credible that that was Apostolical whose beginning they knew not now quite contrary we cannot safely believe them to be Apostolical unless we do know their beginning to have been from the Apostles For this consisting of probabilities and particulars which put together make up a moral demonstration the Argument which I now urge hath been growing these fifteen hundred years and if anciently there was so much as to evacuate the Authority of Tradition much more is there now absolutely to destroy it when all the particulars which time and infinite variety of humane accidents have been amassing together are now concentred and are united by way of constipation Because every Age and every great change and every heresie and every interest hath increased the difficulty of finding out true Traditions 5. Thirdly There are very many Traditions which are lost and
Tradition descends upon us with unequal certainty it would be very unequal to require of us an absolute belief of every thing not written for fear we be accounted to slight Tradition Apostolical And since no thing can require our supreme assent but that which is truly Catholick and Apostolick and to such a Tradition is required as Irenaeus says the consent of all those Churches which the Apostles planted and where they did preside this topick will be of so little use in judging heresies that beside what is deposited in Scripture it cannot be proved in any thing but in the Canon of Scripture it self and as it is now received even in that there is some variety 8. And therefore there is wholly a mistake in this business for when the Fathers appeal to Tradition and with much earnestness and some clamour they call upon Hereticks to conform to or to be tryed by Tradition it is such a Tradition as delivers the fundamental points of Christianity which were also recorded in Scripture But because the Canon was not yet perfectly consign'd they called to that testimony they had which was the testimony of the Churches Apostolical whose Bishops and Priests being the Antistites religionis did believe and preach Christian Religion and conserve all its great mysteries according as they have been taught Irenaeus calls this a Tradition Apostolical Christum accepisse calicem dixisse sanguinem suum esse docuisse nodum oblationem novi Testamenti quam Ecclesia per Apostolos accipiens offert per totum mundum And the Fathers in these Ages confute Hereticks by Ecclesiastical Tradition that is they confront against their impious and blasphemous doctrines that Religion which the Apostles having taught to the Churches where they did preside their Successors did still preach and for a long while together suffered not the enemy to sow tares amongst their wheat And yet these doctrines which they called Traditions were nothing but such fundamental truths which were in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Irenaeus in Eusebius observes in the instance of Polycarpus and it is manifest by considering what heresies they fought against the heresies of Ebion Cerinthus Nicolaitans Valentinians Carpocratians persons that denied the Son of God the Unity of the Godhead that preached impurity that practised Sorcery and Witch-craft And now that they did rather urge Tradition against them than Scripture was because the publick Doctrine of all the Apostolical Churches was at first more known and famous than many parts of the Scripture and because some Hereticks denied S. Lukes Gospel some received none but S. Matthews some rejected all S. Pauls Epistles and it was a long time before the whole Canon was consigned by universal testimony some Churches having one part some another Rome her self had not all so that in this case the Argument from Tradition was the most famous the most certain and the most prudent And now according to this rule they had more Traditions than we have and Traditions did by degrees lessen as they came to be written and their necessity was less as the knowledge of them was ascertained to us by a better Keeper of Divine Truths All that great mysteriousness of Christs Priest-hood the unity of his Sacrifice Christs Advocation and Intercession for us in Heaven and many other excellent Doctrines might very well be accounted Traditions before S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrews was published to all the World but now they are written truths and if they had not possibly we might either have lost them quite or doubted of them as we doe of many other Traditions by reason of the insufficiency of the propounder And therefore it was that S. Peter took order that the Gospel should be Writ for he had promised that he would doe something which after his decease should have these things in remembrance He knew it was not safe trusting the report of men where the fountain might quickly run dry or be corrupted so insensibly that no cure could be found for it nor any just notice taken of it till it were incurable And indeed there is scarce any thing but what is written in Scripture that can with any confidence of Argument pretend to derive from the Apostles except rituals and manners of ministration but no doctrines or speculative mysteries are so transmitted to us by so clear a current that we may see a visible channel and trace it to the Primitive fountains It is said to be a Tradition Apostolical that no Priest should baptize without chrism and the command of the Bishop Suppose it were yet we cannot be obliged to believe it with much confidence because we have but little proof for it scarce any thing but the single testimony of S. Hierom. And yet if it were this is but a ritual of which in passing by I shall give that account That suppose this and many more rituals did derive clearly from Tradition Apostolical which yet but very few doe yet it is hard that any Church should be charged with crime for not observing such rituals because we see some of them which certainly did derive from the Apostles are expired and gone out in a desuetude such as are abstinence from bloud and from things strangled the coenobitick life of secular persons the colledge of widows to worship standing upon the Lords day to give milk and honey to the newly baptized and many more of the like nature now there having been no mark to distinguish the necessity of one from the indifferency of the other they are all alike necessary or alike indifferent If the former why does no Church observe them If the latter why does the Church of Rome charge upon others the shame of novelty for leaving of some Rites and Ceremonies which by her own practice we are taught to have no obligation in them but the adiaphorous S. Paul gave order that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife The Church of Rome will not allow so much other Churches allow more The Apostles commanded Christians to Fast on Wednesday and Friday as appears in their Canons the Church of Rome Fasts Friday and Saturday and not on Wednesday The Apostes had their Agapae or love Feasts we should believe them scandalous They used a kiss of charity in ordinary addresses the Church of Rome keeps it only in their Masse other Churches quite omit it The Apostles permitted Priests and Deacons to live in conjugal Society as appears in the 5. Can. of the Apostles which to them is an Argument who believe them such and yet the Church of Rome by no means will endure it nay more Michael Medina gives Testimony that of 84. Canons Apostolical which Clemens collected scarce six or eight are observed by the Latine Church and Peresius gives this account of it In illis contineri multa quae temporum corruptione non plenè observantu◠aliis pro temporis materiae qualitate aut obliteratis aut totius
particular authority of these men whose Commentaries they are and therefore must be considered with them 12. The summe is this Since the Fathers who are the best witnesses of Traditions yet were infinitely deceived in their account since sometimes they guest at them and conjectured by way of Rule and Discourse and not of their knowledge not by evidence of the thing since many are called Traditions which were not so many are uncertain whether they were or no yet confidently pretended and this uncertainty which at first was great enough is increased by infinite causes and accidents in the succession of 1600 years since the Church hath been either so careless or so abused that she could not or would not preserve Traditions with carefulness and truth since it was ordinary for the old Writers to set out their own fancies and the Rites of their Church which had been Ancient under the specious Title of Apostolical Traditions since some Traditions rely but upon single Testimony at first and yet descending upon others come to be attested by many whose Testimony though conjunct yet in value is but single because it relies upon the first single Relator and so can have no greater authority or certainty than they derive from the single person since the first Ages who were most competent to consign Tradition yet did consign such Traditions as be of a nature wholly discrepant from the present Questions and speak nothing at all or very imperfectly to our purposes and the following ages are no fit witnesses of that which was not transmitted to them because they could not know it at all but by such transmission and prior consignation since what at first was a Tradition came afterwards to be written and so ceased its being a Tradition yet the credit of Traditions commenced upon the certainty and reputation of those truths first delivered by word afterward consigned by writing since what was certainly Tradition Apostolical as many Rituals were are rejected by the Church in several ages and are gone out into a desuetude and lastly since beside the no necessity of Traditions there being abundantly enough in Scripture there are many things called Traditions by the Fathers which they themselves either proved by no Authors or by Apocryphal and spurious and Heretical the matter of Tradition will in very much be so uncertain so false so suspicious so contradictory so improbable so unproved that if a Question be contested and be offered to be proved only by Tradition it will be very hard to impose such a proposition to the belief of all men with an imperiousness or resolved determination but it will be necessary men should preserve the liberty of believing and prophecying and not part with it upon a worse merchandise and exchange than Esau made for his birthright SECT VI. Of the uncertainty and insufficiency of Councils Ecclesiastical to the same purpose 1. BUT since we are all this while in uncertainty it is necessary that we should address our selves somewhere where we may rest the soal of our foot And Nature Scripture and Experience teach the World in matters of Question to submit to some final sentence For it is not reason that controversies should continue till the erring person shall be willing to condemn himself and the Spirit of God hath directed us by that great precedent at Jerusalem to address our selves to the Church that in a plenary Council and Assembly she may Synodically determine Controversies So that if a General Council have determined a Question or expounded Scripture we may no more disbelieve the Decree than the Spirit of God himself who speaks in them And indeed if all Assemblies of Bishops were like that first and all Bishops were of the same spirit of which the Apostles were I should obey their Decree with the same Religion as I do them whose Preface was Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis and I doubt not but our blessed Saviour intended that the Assemblies of the Church should be Judges of the Controversies and guides of our perswasions in matters of difficulty But he also intended they should proceed according to his will which he had revealed and those precedents which he had made authentick by the immediate assistance of his holy Spirit He hath done his part but we do not do ours And if any private person in the simplicity and purity of his soul desires to find out a truth of which he is in search and inquisition if he prays for wisdom we have a promise he shall be heard and answered liberally and therefore much more when the representatives of the Catholick Church do meet because every person there hath in individuo a title to the promise and another title as he is a governour and a guide of souls and all of them together have another title in their united capacity especially if in that union they pray and proceed with simplicity and purity so that there is no disputing against the pretence and promises and authority of General Councils For if any one man can hope to be guided by Gods Spirit in the search the pious and impartial and unprejudicate search of truth then much more may a General Council If no private man can hope for it then truth is not necessary to be found nor we are not obliged to search for it or else we are saved by chance But if private men can by vertue of a promise upon certain conditions be assured of finding out sufficient truth much more shall a General Council So that I consider thus There are many promises pretended to belong to General Assemblies in the Church but I know not any ground nor any pretence that they shall be absolutely assisted without any condition on their own parts and whether they will or no Faith is a vertue as well as Charity and therefore consists in liberty and choice and hath nothing in it of necessity There is no Question but that they are obliged to proceed according to some rule for they expect no assistance by way of Enthusiasme if they should I know no warrant for that neither did any General Council ever offer a Decree which they did not think sufficiently proved by Scripture Reason or Tradition as appears in the Acts of the Councils now then if they be tied to conditions it is their duty to observe them but whether it be certain that they will observe them that they will do all their duty that they will not sin even in this particular in the neglect of their duty that 's the consideration So that if any man questions the Title and Authority of General Councils and whether or no great promises appertain to them I suppose him to be much mistaken but he also that thinks all of them have proceeded according to rule and reason and that none of them were deceived because possibly they might have been truly directed is a stranger to the History of the Church and to the perpetual instances and experiments of
Council of Pisa is neque approbatum neque reprobatum which is the greatest folly of all and most prodigious vanity So that by something or other either they were not convened lawfully or they did not proceed Conciliariter or 't is not certain that the Council was General or no or whether the Council were approbatum or reprobatum or else it is partim confirmatum partim reprobatum or else it is neque approbatum neque reprobatum by one of these ways or a device like to these all Councils and all Decrees shall be made to signifie nothing and to have no Authority 7. Thirdly There is no General Council that hath determined that a General Council is infallible no Scripture hath recorded it no Tradition universal hath transmitted to us any such proposition So that we must receive the Authority at a lower rate and upon a less probability then the things consigned by that Authority And it is strange that the Decrees of Councils should be esteemed authentick and infallible and yet it is not infallibly certain that the Councils themselves are infallible because the belief of the Councils infallibility is not proved to us by any medium but such as may deceive us 8. Fourthly But the best instance that Councils are some and may all be deceived is the contradiction of one Council to another for in that case both cannot be true and which of them is true must belong to another judgment which is less then the solennity of a General Council and the determination of this matter can be of no greater certainty after it is concluded then when it was propounded as a Question being it is to be determined by the same Authority or by a less then it self But for this allegation we cannot want instances The Council of Trent allows picturing of God the Father The Council of Nice altogether disallows it The same Nicene Council which was the seventh General allows of picturing Christ in the form of a Lamb But the sixth Synod by no means will indure it as Caranza affirms The Council of Neocaesarea confirmed by Leo IV. dist 20. de libellis and approved by the first Nicene Council as it is said in the seventh Session of the Council of Florence forbids second Marriages and imposes Penances on them that are married the second time forbidding Priests to be present at such Marriage-Feasts Besides that this is expresly against the Doctrine of Saint Paul it is also against the Doctrine of the Council of Laodicea which took off such Penances and pronounced second Marriages to be free and lawfull Nothing is more discrepant then the third Council of Carthage and the Council of Laodicea about assignation of the Canon of Scripture and yet the sixth General Synod approves both And I would fain know if all General Councils are of the same mind with the Fathers of the Council of Carthage who reckon into the Canon five Books of Solomon I am sure Saint Austin reckoned but three and I think all Christendom beside are of the same opinion And if we look into the title of the Law de Conciliis called Concordantia discordantiarum we shall finde instances enough to confirm that the Decrees of some Councils are contradictory to others and that no wit can reconcile them And whether they did or no that they might disagree and former Councils be corrected by later was the belief of the Doctors in those Ages in which the best and most famous Councils were convened as appears in that famous saying of S. Austin speaking concerning the rebaptizing of Hereticks and how much the Africans were deceived in that Question he answers the Allegation of the Bishops Letters and chose National Councils which confirmed S. Cyprian's opinion by saying that they were no final determination For Episcoporum literae emendari possunt à Conciliis nationalibus Concilia nationalia à plenariis ipsáque plenaria priora à posterioribus emendari Not onely the occasion of the Question being a matter not of fact but of Faith as being instanced in the Question of rebaptization but also the very fabrick and oeconomy of the words put by all the answers of all those men who think themselves pressed with the Authority of S. Austin For as National Councils may correct the Bishops Letters and General Councils may correct National so the later General may correct the former that is have contrary and better Decrees of manners and better determinations in matters of faith And from hence hath risen a Question Whether is to be received the former or the later Councils in case they contradict each other The former are nearer the fountains Apostolicall the later are of greater consideration The first have more Authority the later more reason The first are more venerable the later more inquisitive and seeing And now what rule shall we have to determine our beliefs whether to Authority or Reason the Reason and the Authority both of them not being the highest in their kind both of them being repudiable and at most but probable And here it is that this great uncertainty is such as not to determine any body but fit to serve every body and it is sport to see that Bellarmine will by all means have the Council of Carthage preferred before the Council of Laodicea because it is later and yet he prefers the second Nicene Council before the Council of Frankfurt because it is elder S. Austin would have the former Generals to be mended by the later but Isidore in Gratian saies when Councils do differ standum esse antiquioribus the elder must carry it And indeed these probables are buskins to serve every foot and they are like magnum parvum they have nothing of their own all that they have is in comparison of others so these Topicks have nothing of resolute and dogmaticall truth but in relation to such ends as an interessed person hath a minde to serve upon them 9. Fifthly There are many Councils corrupted and many pretended and alledged when there were no such things both which make the Topick of the Authority of Councils to be little and inconsiderable There is a Council brought to light in the edition of Councils by Binius viz. Sinuessanum pretended to be kept in the year 303. but it was so private till then that we find no mention of it in any ancient Record Neither Eusebius nor Ruffinus S. Hierom nor Socrates Sozomen nor Theodoret nor Eutropius nor Bede knew any thing of it and the eldest allegation of it is by Pope Nicolas I. in the ninth Century And he that shall consider that 300 Bishops in the midst of horrid Persecutions for so then they were are pretended to have conven'd will need no greater Argument to suspect the imposture Besides he that was the framer of the engine did not lay his ends together handsomly for it is said that the deposition of Marcellinus by the Synod was told to Diocletian
Alphonsus à Castro says to the same purpose in the instance of Caelestine dissolving Marriages for Heresy Neque Caelestini error talis fuit qui soli negligentiae imputari debeat ità ut illum errâsse dicamus velut privatam personam non ut Papam quoniam hujusmodi Caelestini definitio habetur in antiquis Decretalibus in cap. Laudabilem titulo De conversione infidelium quam ego ipse vidi legi Lib. 1. adv haeres cap. 4. And therefore 't is a most intolerable folly to pretend that the Pope cannot erre in his Chair though he may erre in his Closet and may maintain a false opinion even to his death For besides that it is sottish to think that either he would not have the world of his own opinion as all men naturally would or that if he were set in his Chair he would determine contrary to himself in his Study and therefore to represent it as possible they are fain to flie to a Miracle for which they have no colour neither instructions nor insinuation nor warrant nor promise besides that it were impious and unreasonable to depose him for Heresy who may so easily even by setting himself in his Chair and reviewing his Theorems be cured it is also against a very great experience For besides the former Allegations it is most notorious that Pope Alexander III. in a Council at Rome of 300 Archbishops and Bishops A. D. 1179. condemned Peter Lombard of Heresy in a matter of great concernment no less then something about the Incarnation from which Sentence he was after 36 years abiding it absolved by Pope Innocent III. without repentance or dereliction of the Opinion Now if this Sentence was not a Cathedral Dictate as solemn and great as could be expected or as is said to be necessary to oblige all Christendome let the great Hyperaspists of the Roman Church be Judges who tell us that a particular Council with the Pope's confirmation is made Oecumenicall by adoption and is infallible and obliges all Christendome so Bellarmine And therefore he says that it is temerarium erroneum proximum haeresi to deny it But whether it be or not it is all one as to my purpose For it is certain that in a particular Council confirmed by the Pope if ever then and there the Pope sate himself in his Chair and it is as certain that he sate besides the cushion and determined ridiculously and falsely in this case But this is a device for which there is no Scripture no Tradition no one dogmaticall resolute saying of any Father Greek or Latine for above 1000 years after Christ and themselves when they list can acknowledge as much And therefore Bellarmine's saying I perceive is believed of them to be true That there are many things in the Decretall Epistles which make not Articles to be de fide And therefore Non est necessariò credendum determinatis per summum Pontificem says Almain And this serves their turns in every thing they do not like and therefore I am resolved it shall serve my turn also for something and that is that the matter of the Pope's Infallibility is so ridiculous and improbable that they do not believe it themselves Some of them clearly practised the contrary and although Pope Leo X. hath determined the Pope to be above a Council yet the Sorbon to this day scorn it at the very heart And I might urge upon them that scorn that Almain truly enough by way of Argument alledges It is a wonder that they who affirm the Pope cannot erre in judgement do not also affirm that he cannot sin they are like enough to say so says he if the vicious lives of the Popes did not make a daily confutation of such flattery Now for my own particular I am as confident and think it as certain that Popes are actually deceived in matters of Christian Doctrine as that they do prevaricate the laws of Christian piety And therefore Alphonsus à Castro calls them impudentes Papae assentatores that ascribe to him infallibility in judgment or interpretation of Scripture 17. But if themselves did believe it heartily what excuse is there in the world for the strange uncharitableness or supine negligence of the Popes that they do not set themselves in their Chair and write infallible Commentaries and determine all Controversies without errour and blast all Heresies with the word of their mouth declare what is and what is not de fide that his Disciples and Confidents may agree upon it reconcile the Franciscans and Dominicans and expound all Mysteries For it cannot be imagined but he that was endued with so supreme power in order to so great ends was also fitted with proportionable that is extraordinary personal abilities succeeding and derived upon the persons of all the Popes And then the Doctors of his Church need not trouble themselves with study nor writing explications of Scripture but might wholly attend to practicall Devotion and leave all their Scholasticall wranglings the distinguishing Opinions of their Orders and they might have a fine Church something like Fairy-land or Lucian's Kingdome in the Moon But if they say they cannot doe this when they list but when they are moved to it by the Spirit then we are never the nearer for so may the Bishop of Angoulesme write infallible Commentaries when the Holy Ghost moves him to it for I suppose his motions are not ineffectual but he will sufficiently assist us in performing of what he actually moves us to But among so many hundred Decrees which the Popes of Rome have made or confirmed and attested which is all one I would fain know in how many of them did the Holy Ghost assist them If they know it let them declare it that it may be certain which of their Decretals are de fide for as yet none of his own Church knows If they do not know then neither can we know it from them and then we are as uncertain as ever And besides the Holy Ghost may possibly move him and he by his ignorance of it may neglect so profitable a motion and then his promise of infallible assistance will be to very little purpose because it is with very much fallibility applicable to practice And therefore it is absolutely useless to any man or any Church because suppose it settled in Thesi that the Pope is infallible yet whether he will doe his duty and perform those conditions of being assisted which are required of him or whether he be a secret Simoniack for if he be he is ipso facto no Pope or whether he be a Bishop or Priest or a Christian being all uncertain every one of these depending upon the intention and power of the Baptizer or Ordainer which also are fallible because they depend upon the honesty and power of other men we cannot be infallibly certain of any Pope that he is infallible and therefore when our Questions are
determined we are never the nearer but may hug ourselves in an imaginary truth the certainty of finding truth out depending upon so many fallible and contingent circumstances And therefore the thing if it were true being so to no purpose it is to be presumed that God never gave a power so impertinently and from whence no benefit can accrue to the Christian Church for whose use and benefit if at all it must needs have been appointed 18. But I am too long in this impertinency If I were bound to call any man Master upon earth and to believe him upon his own affirmative and authority I would of all men least follow him that pretends he is infallible and cannot prove it For he that cannot prove it makes me as uncertain as ever and that he pretends to Infallibility makes him careless of using such means which will morally secure those wise persons who knowing their own aptness to be deceived use what endeavours they can to secure themselves from errour and so become the better and more probable guides 19. Well thus far we are come Although we are secured in Fundamental points from involuntary errour by the plain express and dogmaticall places of Scripture yet in other things we are not but may be invincibly mistaken because of the obscurity and difficulty in the controverted parts of Scripture by reason of the incertainty of the means of its Interpretation since Tradition is of an uncertain reputation and sometimes evidently false Councils are contradictory to each other and therefore certainly are equally deceived many of them and therefore all may and then the Popes of Rome are very likely to mislead us but cannot ascertain us of truth in matter of Question and in this world we believe in part and prophesy in part and this imperfection shall never be done away till we be translated to a more glorious state either then we must throw our chances and get truth by accident or predestination or else we must lie safe in a mutuall Toleration and private liberty of perswasion unless some other Anchor can be thought upon where we may fasten our floating Vessels and ride safely SECT VIII Of the disability of Fathers or Writers Ecclesiastical to determine our Questions with certainty and truth 1. THere are some that think they can determine all Questions in the world by two or three sayings of the Fathers or by the consent of so many as they will please to call a concurrent Testimony But this consideration will soon be at an end For if the Fathers when they are witnesses of Tradition do not always speak truth as it happened in the case of Papias and his numerous Followers for almost three Ages together then is their Testimony more improbable when they dispute or write Commentaries 2. The Fathers of the first Ages spake unitedly concerning divers Questions of secret Theology and yet were afterwards contradicted by one personage of great reputation whose credit had so much influence upon the world as to make the contrary opinion become popular why then may not we have the same liberty when so plain an uncertainty is in their perswasions and so great contrariety in their Doctrines But this is evident in the case of absolute Predestination which till Saint Austin's time no man preached but all taught the contrary and yet the reputation of this one excellent man altered the scene But if he might dissent from so general a Doctrine why may not we doe so too it being pretended that he is so excellent a precedent to be followed if we have the same reason He had no more Authority nor dispensation to dissent then any Bishop hath now And therefore Saint Austin hath dealt ingenuously and as he took this liberty to himself so he denies it not to others but indeed forces them to preserve their own liberty And therefore when Saint Hierom had a great minde to follow the Fathers in a point that he fansied and the best security he had was Patiaris me cum talibus errare Saint Austin would not endure it but answered his reason and neglected the Authority And therefore it had been most unreasonable that we should doe that now though in his behalf which he towards greater personages for so they were then at that time judged to be unreasonable It is a plain recession from Antiquity which was determined by the Council of Florence piorum animas purgatas c. mox in Coelum recipi intueri clarè ipsum Deum trinum unum sicuti est as who please to â—ry may see it dogmatically resolved to the contrary by Justin Martyr by Irenaeus by Origen by Saint Chrysostome Theodoret Arethas Caesariensis Euthymius who may answer for the Greek Church And it is plain that it was the opinion of the Greek Church by that great difficulty the Romans had of bringing the Greeks to subscribe to the Florentine Council where the Latines acted their master-piece of wit and strategem the greatest that hath been till the famous and superpolitick design of Trent And for the Latine Church Tertullian Saint Ambrose Saint Austin Saint Hilary Prudentius Lactantius Victorinus Martyr and Saint Bernard are known to be of opinion that the souls of the Saints are in abditis receptaculis exterioribus atriis where they expect the resurrection of their bodies and the glorification of their souls and though they all believe them to be happy yet they injoy not the beatifick Vision before the resurrection Now there being so full a consent of Fathers for many more may be added and the Decree of Pope John XXII besides who was so confident for his Decree that he commanded the University of Paris to swear that they would preach it and no other and that none should be promoted to degrees in Theology that did not swear the like as Occham Gerson Marsilius and Adrianus report since it is esteemed lawfull to dissent from all these I hope no man will be so unjust to press other men to consent to an Authority which he himself judges to be incompetent These two great instances are enough but if more were necessary I could instance in the opinion of the Chiliasts maintained by the second and third Centuries and disavowed ever since in the Doctrine of communicating Infants taught and practised as necessary by the fourth and fifth Centuries and detested by the Latine Church in all the following Ages in the variety of opinions concerning the very form of Baptism some keeping close to the institution and the words of its first sanction others affirming it to be sufficient if it be administred in nomine Christi particularly Saint Ambrose Pope Nicolas the First Ven. Bede and Saint Bernard besides some Writers of after-Ages as Hugo de Sancto Victore and the Doctors generally his contemporaries And it would not be inconsiderable to observe that if
particulars as being of less difficulty And he that considers how many notes there are given to know the true Church by no less then 15 by Bellarmine and concerning every one of them almost whether it be a certain note or no there are very many questions and uncertainties and when it is resolved which are the notes there is more dispute about the application of these notes then of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will quickly be satisfied that he had better sit still then to go round about a difficult and troublesome passage and at last get no farther but return to the place from whence he first set out And there is one note amongst the rest Holiness of Doctrine that is so as to have nothing false either in Doctrina fidei or morum for so Bellarmine explicates it which supposes all your Controversies judged before they can be tried by the Authority of the Church and when we have found out all true Doctrine for that is necessary to judge of the Church by that as Saint Austin's counsel is Ecclesiam in verbis Christi investigemus then we are bound to follow because we judge it true not because the Church hath said it and this is to judge of the Church by her Doctrine not of the Doctrine by the Church And indeed it is the best and onely way But then how to judge of that Doctrine will be afterwards enquired into In the mean time the Church that is the Governours of the Churches are to judge for themselves and for all those who cannot judge for themselves For others they must know that their Governours judge for them too so as to keep them in peace and obedience though not for the determination of their private perswasions For the Oeconomy of the Church requires that her Authority be received by all her children Now this Authority is Divine in its original for it derives immediately from Christ but it is humane in its ministration We are to be led like men not like beasts A Rule is prescribed for the Guides themselves to follow as we are to follow the Guides and although in matters indeterminable or ambiguous the presumption lies on behalf of the Governours for we doe nothing for Authority if we suffer it not to weigh that part down of an indifferency and a question which she chuses yet if there be error manifestus as it often happens or if the Church-Governours themselves be rent into innumerable Sects as it is this day in Christendom then we are to be as wise as we can in chusing our Guides and then to follow so long as that reason remains for which we first chose them And even in that Government which was an immediate Sanction of God I mean the Ecclesiasticall Government of the Synagogue where God had consign'd the High-Priest's Authority with a menace of death to them that should disobey that all the world might know the meaning and extent of such precepts and that there is a limit beyond which they cannot command and we ought not to obey it came once to that pass that if the Priest had been obeyed in his Conciliary Decrees the whole Nation had been bound to believe the condemnation of our Blessed Saviour to have been just and at another time the Apostles must no more have preached in the name of JESUS But here was manifest errour And the case is the same to every man that invincibly and therefore innocently believes it so Deo potiùs quà m hominibus is our rule in such cases For although every man is bound to follow his Guide unless he believes his Guide to mislead him yet when he sees reason against his Guide it is best to follow his reason for though in this he may fall into errour yet he will escape the sin he may doe violence to Truth but never to his own Conscience and an honest errour is better then an hypocriticall profession of truth or a violent luxation of the understanding since if he retains his honesty and simplicity he cannot erre in a matter of Faith or absolute necessity God's goodness hath secured all honest and carefull persons from that for other things he must follow the best guides he can and he cannot be obliged to follow better then God hath given him 3. And there is yet another way pretended of infallible Expositions of Scripture and that is by the Spirit But of this I shall say no more but that it is impertinent as to this Question For put case the Spirit is given to some men enabling them to expound infallibly yet because this is but a private assistance and cannot be proved to others this infallible assistance may determine my own assent but shall not inable me to prescribe to others because it were unreasonable I should unless I could prove to him that I have the Spirit and so can secure him from being deceived if he relies upon me In this case I may say as S. Paul in the case of praying with the Spirit He verily giveth thanks well but the other is not edified So that let this pretence be as true as it will it is sufficient that it cannot be of consideration in this Question 4. The result of all is this Since it is not reasonable to limit and prescribe to all mens understandings by any external Rule in the interpretation of difficult places of Scripture which is our Rule since no man nor company of men is secure from errour or can secure us that they are free from malice interest and design and since all the ways by which we usually are taught as Tradition Councils Decretalls c. are very uncertain in the matter in their authority in their being legitimate and natural and many of them certainly false and nothing certain but the Divine Authority of Scripture in which all that is necessary is plain and much of that that is not necessary is very obscure intricate and involv'd either we must set up our rest onely upon Articles of Faith and plain places and be incurious of other obscurer revelations which is a duty for persons of private understandings and of no publick function or if we will search farther to which in some measure the Guides of others are obliged it remains we enquire how men may determine themselves so as to doe their duty to God and not to disserve the Church that every such man may doe what he is bound to in his personal capacity and as he relates to the publick as a publick minister SECT X. Of the authority of Reason and that it proceeding upon best grounds is the best Judge 1. HEre then I consider that although no man may be trusted to judge for all others unless this person were infallible and authorized so to doe which no man nor no company of men is yet every man may be trusted to judge for himself I say every man that can judge at all as for others they are to be saved as it pleaseth
a napkin I am not so well assured I am certain the other is not And since another man's answering for me will not hinder but that I also shall answer for myself as it concerns him to see he does not wilfully misguide me so it concerns me to see that he shall not if I can help it if I cannot it will not be required at my hands whether it be his fault or his invincible errour I shall be charged with neither 4. This is no other then what is enjoyned as a duty For since God will be justified with a free obedience and there is an obedience of understanding as well as of will and affection it is of great concernment as to be willing to believe whatever God says so also to enquire diligently whether the will of God be so as is pretended Even our acts of understanding are acts of choice and therefore it is commanded as a duty to search the Scriptures to try the spirits whether they be of God or no of our selves to be able to judge what is right to try all things and to retain that which is best For he that resolves not to consider resolves not to be carefull whether he have truth or no and therefore hath an affection indifferent to truth or falshood which is all one as if he did chuse amiss and since when things are truly propounded and made reasonable and intelligible we cannot but assent and then it is no thanks to us we have no way to give our wills to God in matters of belief but by our industry in searching it and examining the grounds upon which the propounders build their dictates And the not doing it is oftentimes a cause that God gives a man over 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into a reprobate and undiscerning mind and understanding 5. And this very thing though men will not understand it is the perpetuall practice of all men in the world that can give a reasonable account of their Faith The very Catholick Church itself is rationabilis ubique diffusa saith Optatus reasonable as well as diffused every-where For take the Proselytes of the Church of Rome even in their greatest submission of understanding they seem to themselves to follow their Reason most of all For if you tell them Scripture and Tradition are their Rules to follow they will believe you when they know a reason for it and if they take you upon your word they have a reason for that too either they believe you a learned man or a good man or that you can have no ends upon them or something that is of an equal height to fit their understandings If you tell them they must believe the Church you must tell them why they are bound to it and if you quote Scripture to prove it you must give them leave to judge whether the words alledged speak your sense or no and therefore to dissent if they say no such thing And although all men are not wise and proceed discreetly yet all make their choice some way or other He that chuses to please his fancy takes his choice as much as he that chuses prudently And no man speaks more unreasonably then he that denies to men the use of their Reason in choice of their Religion For that I may by the way remove the common prejudice Reason and Authority are not things incompetent or repugnant especially when the Authority is infallible and supreme for there is no greater Reason in the world then to believe such an Authority But then we must consider whether every Authority that pretends to be such is so indeed And therefore Deus dixit ergò hoc verum est is the greatest Demonstration in the world for things of this nature But it is not so in humane Dictates and yet Reason and humane Authority are not enemies For it is a good argument for us to follow such an Opinion because it is made sacred by the Authority of Councils and Ecclesiasticall Tradition and sometimes it is the best reason we have in a Question and then it is to be strictly followed but there may also be at other times a reason greater then it that speaks against it and then the Authority must not carry it But then the difference is not between Reason and Authority but between this Reason and that which is greater for Authority is a very good reason and is to prevail unless a stronger comes and disarms it but then it must give place So that in this Question by Reason I do not mean a distinct Topick but a transcendent that runs through all Topicks for Reason like Logick is instrument of all things else and when Revelation and Philosophie and publick Experience and all other grounds of probability or demonstration have supplied us with matter then Reason does but make use of them that is in plain terms there being so many ways of arguing so many Sects such differing interests such variety of Authority so many pretences and so many false beliefs it concerns every wise man to consider which is the best Argument which Proposition relies upon the truest grounds And if this were not his onely way why do men dispute and urge Arguments why do they cite Councils and Fathers why do they alledge Scripture and Tradition and all this on all sides and to contrary purposes If we must judge then we must use our Reason if we must not judge why do they produce evidence Let them leave disputing and decree Propositions magisterially but then we may chuse whether we will believe them or no or if they say we must believe them they must prove it and tell us why And all these disputes concerning Tradition Councils Fathers c. are not Arguments against or besides Reason but contestations and pretences to the best Arguments and the most certain satisfaction of our Reason But then all these coming into question submit themselves to Reason that is to be judged by humane understanding upon the best grounds and information it can receive So that Scripture Tradition Councils and Fathers are the evidence in a question but Reason is the Judge that is we being the persons that are to be perswaded we must see that we be perswaded reasonably and it is unreasonable to assent to a lesser evidence when a greater and clearer is propounded But of that every man for himself is to take cognizance if he be able to judge if he be not he is not bound under the tie of necessity to know any thing of it that that is necessary shall be certainly conveyed to him God that best can will certainly take care for that for if he does not it becomes to be not necessary or if it should still remain necessary and he damned for not knowing it and yet to know it be not in his power then who can help it there can be no farther care in this business In other things there being no absolute and prime necessity we are
for all that law of killing such false Prophets were permitted with impunity in the Synagogue as appears beyond exception in the great divisions and disputes between the Pharisees and the Sadducees I deny not but certain and known Idolatry or any other sort of practicall impiety with its principiant Doctrine may be punished corporally because it is no other but matter of fact but no matter of mere Opinion no errours that of themselves are not sins are to be persecuted or punished by death or corporal inflictions This is now to be proved 3. Secondly All the former Discourse is sufficient argument how easie it is for us in such matters to be deceived So long as Christian Religion was a simple profession of the Articles of Belief and a hearty prosecution of the rules of good life the fewness of the Articles and the clearness of the Rule was cause of the seldome prevarication But when Divinity is swelled up to so great a body when the several Questions which the peevishness and wantonness of sixteen Ages have commenced are concentred into one and from all these Questions something is drawn into the body of Theologie till it hath ascended up to the greatnesse of a mountain and the summe of Divinity collected by Aquinas makes a volume as great as was that of Livy mocked at in the Epigram Quem mea vix totum bibliotheca capit it is impossible for any industry to consider so many particulars in the infinite numbers of Questions as are necessary to be considered before we can with certainty determine any And after all the considerations which we can have in a whole Age we are not sure not to be deceived The obscurity of some Questions the nicity of some Articles the intricacy of some Revelations the variety of humane understandings the windings of Logick the tricks of adversaries the subtilty of Sophisters the ingagement of educations personal affections the portentous number of writers the infinity of Authorities the vastness of some arguments as consisting in enumeration of many particulars the uncertainty of others the several degrees of probability the difficulties of Scripture the invalidity of probation of Tradition the opposition of all exteriour arguments to each other and their open contestation the publick violence done to Authors and records the private arts and supplantings the falsifyings the indefatigable industry of some men to abuse all understandings and all perswasions into their own Opinions these and thousands more even all the difficulty of things and all the weaknesses of man and all the arts of the Devil have made it impossible for any man in so great variety of matter not to be deceived No man pretends to it but the Pope and no man is more deceived then he is in that very particular 4. Thirdly From hence proceeds a danger which is consequent to this proceeding for if we who are so apt to be deceived and so insecure in our resolution of Questions disputable should persecute a disagreeing person we are not sure we do not fight against God For if his Proposition be true and persecuted then because all Truth derives from God this proceeding is against God and therefore this is not to be done upon Gamaliel's ground lest peradventure we be found to fight against God of which because we can have no security at least in this case we have all the guilt of a doubtfull or an uncertain Conscience For if there be no security in the thing as I have largely proved the Conscience in such cases is as uncertain as the Question is and if it be not doubtfull where it is uncertain it is because the man is not wise but as confident as ignorant the first without reason and the second without excuse And it is very disproportionable for a man to persecute another certainly for a Proposition that if he were wise he would know is not certain at least the other person may innocently be uncertain of it If he be killed he is certainly killed but if he be called Heretick it is not so certain that he is an Heretick It were good therefore that proceedings were according to evidence and the rivers not swell over the banks nor a certain definitive sentence of Death passed upon such perswasions which cannot certainly be defined And this argument is of so much the more force because we see that the greatest persecutions that ever have been were against Truth even against Christianity itself and it was a prediction of our Blessed Saviour that persecution should be the lot of true believers And if we compute the experience of suffering Christendom and the prediction that Truth should suffer with those few instances of suffering Hereticks it is odds but persecution is on the wrong side and that it is errour and Heresie that is cruel and tyrannical especially since the Truth of Jesus Christ and of his Religion are so meek so charitable and so merciful And we may in this case exactly use the words of S. Paul But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the spirit even so it is now and so it ever will be till Christ's second coming 5. Fourthly Whoever persecutes a disagreeing person arms all the world against himself and all pious people of his own perswasion when the scales of Authority return to his adversary and attest his contradictory and then what can he urge for mercy for himself or his party that sheweth none to others If he says that he is to be spared because he believes true but the other was justly persecuted because he was in errour he is ridiculous For he is as confidently believed to be an Heretick as he believes his adversary such and whetheâ— he be or no being the thing in question of this he is not to be his own judge but he that hath Authority on his side will be sure to judge against him So that what either side can indifferently make use of it is good that neither would because neither side can with reason sufficiently doe it in prejudice of the other If a man will say that every man must take his adventure and if it happens Authority to be with him he will persecute his adversaries and if it turns against him he will bear it as well as he can and hope for a reward of Martyrdom and innocent suffering besides that this is so equal to be said of all sides and besides that this is a way to make an eternall disunion of hearts and charities and that it will make Christendom nothing but a shambles and a perpetuall butchery and as fast as mens wits grow wanton or confident or proud or abused so often there will be new executions and massacres besides all this it is most unreasonable and unjust as being contrariant to those Laws of Justice and Charity whereby we are bound with greater zeal to spare and preserve an innocent then to condemn a guilty person and there
family for it is said of the Ruler at Capernaum that he believed and all his house Now you may also suppose that in his house were little babes that is likely enough and you may suppose that they did believe too before they could understand but that 's not so likely and then the argument from baptizing of Stephen's houshold may be allowed just as probable But this is unman-like to build upon such slight airy conjectures 25. But Tradition by all means must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical that Infants were baptized But at this we are not much moved for we who rely upon the written Word of God as sufficient to establish all true Religion do not value the Allegation of Traditions And however the world goes none of the Reformed Churches can pretend this Argument against this Opinion because they who reject Tradition when 't is against them must not pretend it at all for them But if we should allow the Topick to be good yet how will it be verified For so far as it can yet appear it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen for from him Austin had it For as for the testimony pretended out of Justin Martyr it is to no purpose because the book from whence the words are cited is not Justin's who was before Origen and yet he cites Origen Irenaeus But who please may see it sufficiently condemned by Sixtus Senensis Biblioth Sanct. l. 4. verbo Justinus And as for the â—â—stimony of Origen we know nothing of it for every Heretick interessed person did interpolate all his Works so much that we cannot discern which are his which not Now a Tradition Apostolical if it be not consigned with a fuller testimony then of one person whom all after Ages have condemned of many errours will obtain so little reputation amongst those who know that things have upon greater Authority pretended to derive from the Apostles and yet falsely that it will be a great Argument that he is â—redulous weak that shall be determined by so weak probation in matters of so great concernment And the truth of the business is as there was no command of Scripture to oblige children to the susception of it so the necessity of Paedo-baptism was not determined in the Church till in the eighth Age after Christ but in the year 418. in the Milevitan Council a Provincial of Africa there was a Canon made for Paedo-baptism never till then I grant it was practised in Africa before that time they or some of them thought well of it though that be no Argument for us to think so yet none of them did ever before pretend it to be necessary none to have been a precept of the Gospel S. Austin was the first that ever preached it to be absolutely necessary and it was in his heat anger against Pelagius who had warmed chased him so in that question that it made him innovate in other Doctrines possibly of more concernment then this And although this was practised anciently in Africa yet that it was without an opinion of necessity and not often there nor at all in other places we have the testimony of the learned Paedo-baptist Ludovicus Vives who in his Annotations upon Saint Austin De Civit. Dei l. 1. c. 27. affirms neminem nisi adultum antiquitus solere baptizari 26. But besides that the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical we have very good evidence from Antiquity that it was the opinion of the Primitive Church that Infants ought not to be baptized and this is clear in the sixth Canon of the Council of Nâ—ocaesarea The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sense is this A woman with child may be baptized when she please for her Baptism concerns not the child The reason of the connexion of the parts of that Canon is in the following words Because every one in that confession is to give a demonstration of his own choice and election Meaning plainly that if the Baptism of the mother did also pass upon the child it were not fit for a pregnant woman to receive Baptism because in that Sacrament there being a confession of Faith which confession supposes understanding and free choice it is not reasonable the child should be consigned with such a mysterie since it cannot doe any act of choice or understanding And to this purpose are the words of Balsamon speaking of this Decree and of Infants unborn not to be baptized he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The unborn babe is not to be baptized because he neither is come to light nor can he make choice of the confession that is of the Articles to be confessed in Divine baptism To the same sense are the words of Zonaras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Embryo or unborn babe does then need Baptism when he can chuse The Canon speaks reason and it intimates a practice which was absolutely universal in the Church of interrogating the Catechumens concerning the Articles of Creed Which is one Argument that either they did not admit Infants to Baptism or that they did prevaricate egregiously in asking questions of them who themselves knew were not capable of giving answer But the former was the more probable according to the testimony of Walafridus Stabo Notandum deinde primis temporibus illis solummodo Baptismi gratiam dari solitam qui corporis mentisâ—integritate jam ad hoc pervenerunt ut scire intelligere possent quid emolumenti in Baptismo consequendum quid confitendum atque credendum quid postremò renatis in Christo esset servandum It is to be noted that in those first times the grace of Baptism was wont to be given to those onely who by their integrity of mind and body were arrived to this that they could know and understand what profit was to be had by Baptism what was to be confessed and believ'd in Baptism and what is the duty of them who are born again in Christ. 27. But to supply their incapacity by the answer of a Godfather is but the same unreasonableness acted with a worse circumstance and there is no sensible account can be given of it For that which some imperfectly murmure concerning stipulations civil performed by Tutors in the name of their Pupils is an absolute vanity For what if by positive constitution of the Romans such solennites of Law are required in all stipulations and by indulgence are permitted in the case of a notable benefit accruing to Minors must God be tied and Christian Religion transact her mysteries by proportion and compliance with the Law of the Romans I know God might if he would have appointed Godfathers to give answer in behalf of the Children and to be Fide jussors for them but we cannot find any Authority or ground that he hath and if he had then it is to be supposed he would have given them commission to
Prophesying or Preaching which yet all Christians know does abide with the Church for ever 5. To every ordinary and perpetual Ministery at first there were extraordinary effects and miraculous consignations We find great parts of Nations converted at one Sermon Three thousand Converts came in at once Preaching of S. Peter and five thousand at another Sermon and persons were miraculously cured by the Prayer of the Bishop in his visitation of a sick Christian and Devils cast out in the conversion of a sinner and Blindness cur'd at the Baptism of S. Paul and Aeneas was healed of a Palsie at the same time he was cur'd of his Infidelity and Eutychus was restor'd to life at the Preaching of S. Paul And yet that now we see no such Extraordinaries it follows not that the Visitation of the sick and Preaching Sermons and Absolving Penitents are not ordinary and perpetual ministrations and therefore to fansy that invocation of the Holy Spirit and Imposition of hands is to cease when the extraordinary and temporary contingencies of it are gone is too trifling a fancy to be put in balance against so Sacred an Institution relying upon so many Scriptures 6. With this Objection some vain persons would have troubled the Church in S. Austin's time but he considered it with much indignation writing against the Donatists His words are these At the first times the Holy Spirit fell upon the Believers and they spake with Tongues which they had not learned according as the Spirit gave them utterance They were Signs fitted for the season for so the Holy Ghost ought to have signified in all Tongues because the Gospel of God was to run through all the Nations and Languages of the World so it was signified and so it pass'd through But is it therefore expected that they upon whom there is Imposition of hands that they might receive the Holy Ghost that they should speak with Tongues Or when we lay hands on Infants does every one of you attend to hear them speak with Tongues And when he sees that they do not speak with Tongues is any of you of so perverse a heart as to say They have not received the Holy Ghost for if they had received him they would speak with Tongues as it was done at first But if by these Miracles there is not now given any testimony of the presence of the Holy Spirit how doth any one know that he hath received the Holy Ghost Interroget cor suum Si diligit fratrem manet Spiritus Dei in illo It is true the Gift of Tongues doth not remain but all the greater Gifts of the Holy Spirit remain with the Church for ever Sanctification and Power Fortitude and Hope Faith and Love Let every man search his Heart and see if he belongs to God whether the love of God be not spread in his heart by the Spirit of God Let him see if he be not patient in Troubles comforted in his Afflictions bold to confess the Faith of Christ crucified zealous of Good works These are the miracles of Grace and the mighty powers of the Spirit according to that saying of Christ These signs shall follow them that believe In my Name shall they cast out Devils they shall speak with new Tongues they shall tread on Serpents they shall drink poison and it shall not hurt them and they shall lay their hands on the sick and they shall recover That which we call the Miraculous part is the less power but to cast out the Devil of Lust to throw down the Pride of Lucifer to tread on the great Dragon and to triumph over our Spiritual enemies to cure a diseased Soul to be unharmed by the poison of Temptation of evil Examples and evil Company these are the true signs that shall follow them that truly and rightly believe on the Name of the Lord Jesus this is to live in the Spirit and to walk in the Spirit this is more than to receive the Spirit to a power of Miracles and supernatural products in a natural matter For this is from a supernatural principle to receive supernatural aids to a supernatural end in the Diviner spirit of a man and this being more miraculous than the other it ought not to be pretended that the discontinuance of extraordinary Miracles should cause the discontinuance of an ordinary Ministration and this is that which I was to prove 7. To which it is not amiss to add this Observation that Simon Magus offered to buy this power of the Apostles that he also by laying on of hands might thus minister the Spirit Now he began this sin in the Christian Church and it is too frequent at this day but if all this power be gone then nothing of that sin can remain if the subject matter be removed then the appendant crime cannot abide and there can be no Simony so much as by participation and whatever is or can be done in this kind is no more of this Crime than Drunkenness is of Adultery it relates to it or may be introductive of it or be something like it But certainly since the Church is not so happy as to be intirely free from the Crime of Simony it will be hard to say that the power the buying of which was the principle of this sin and therefore the Rule of all the rest should be removed and the house stand without a foundation the relative without the correspondent the accessary without the principal and the accident without the subject This is impossible and therefore it remains that still there abides in the Church this power that by Imposition of the Hands of fit persons the Holy Ghost is ministred But this will be further cleared in the next Section SECT III. The Holy Rite of Imposition of Hands for the giving the Holy Spirit or Confirmation was actually continued and practised by all the succeeding Ages of the purest and Primitive Church NExt to the plain words of Scripture the traditive Interpretation and Practice of the Church of God is the best Argument in the World for Rituals and Mystical ministrations for the Tradition is universal and all the way acknowledged to be derived from Scripture And although in Rituals the Tradition it self if it be universal and primitive as this is were alone sufficient and is so esteemed in the Baptism of Infants in the Priests consecrating the Holy Eucharist in publick Liturgies in Absolution of Penitents the Lord's Day Communicating of Women and the like yet this Rite of Confirmation being all that and evidently derived from the practice Apostolical and so often recorded in the New Testament both in the Ritual and Mysterious part both in the Ceremony and Spiritual effect is a point of as great Certainty as it is of Usefulness and holy designation Theophilus Antiochenus lived not long after the death of S. John and he derives the name of Christian which was first given to the Disciples in his City from this Chrism or
God the Father and the holy Trinity to the great dishonour of that Sacred mystery against the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church against the express doctrine of Scripture against the honour of a Divine Attribute I mean the Immensity and Spirituality of the Divine Nature You are gone to a Church that pretends to be Infallible and yet is infinitely deceived in many particulars and yet endures no contradiction and is impatient her children should enquire into any thing her Priests obtrude You are gone from receiving the whole Sacrament to receive it but half from Christ's Institution to a humane invention from Scripture to uncertain Traditions and from ancient Traditions to new pretences from Prayers which ye understood to Prayers which ye understand not from confidence in God to rely upon creatures from intire dependence upon inward acts to a dangerous temptation of resting too much in outward ministeries in the external work of Sacraments and of Sacramentals You are gone from a Church whose worshipping is Simple Christian and Apostolical to a Church where mens consciences are loaden with a burden of Ceremonies greater than that in the days of the Jewish Religion for the Ceremonial of the Church of Rome is a great Book in Folio greater I say than all the Ceremonies of the Jews contained in Leviticus c. You are gone from a Church where you were exhorted to read the Word of God the holy Scriptures from whence you found instruction institution comfort reproof a treasure of all excellencies to a Church that seals up that Fountain from you and gives you drink by drops out of such Cisterns as they first make and then stain and then reach out And if it be told you that some men abuse Scripture it is true For if your Priests had not abused Scripture they could not thus have abused you But there is no necessity they should and you need not unless you list any more than you need to abuse the Sacraments or decrees of the Church or the messages of your friend or the Letters you receive or the Laws of the Land all which are liable to be abused by evil persons but not by good people and modest understandings It is now become a part of your Religion to be ignorant to walk in blindness to believe the man that hears your Confessions to hear none but him not to hear God speaking but by him and so you are liable to be abused by him as he please without remedy You are gone from us where you were only taught to worship God through Jesus Christ and now you are taught to worship Saints and Angels with a worship at least dangerous and in some things proper to God For your Church worships the Virgin Mary with burning Incense and Candles to her and you give her Presents which by the consent of all Nations used to be esteemed a Worship peculiar to God and it is the same thing which was condemned for Heresie in the Collyridians who offered a Cake to the Virgin Mary A Candle and a Cake make no difference in the worship and your joyning God and the Saints in your worship and devotions is like the device of them that fought for King and Parliament the latter destroys the former I will trouble you with no more particulars because if these move you not to consider better nothing can But yet I have two things more to add of another nature one of which at least may prevail upon you whom I suppose to have a tender and a religious Conscience The first is That all the points of difference between us and your Church are such as do evidently serve the ends of Covetousness and Ambition of Power and Riches and so stand vehemently suspected of design and art rather than truth of the Article and designs upon Heaven I instance in the Popes power over Princes and all the World His power of dispensation The exemption of the Clergy from jurisdiction of Princes The doctrine of Purgatory and Indulgences which was once made means to raise a portion for a Lady the Neece of Pope Leo the Tenth The Priests power advanced beyond authority of any warrant from Scripture a doctrine apt to bring absolute obedience to the Papacy But because this is possibly too nice for you to suspect or consider that which I am sure ought to move you is this That you are gone to a Religion in which though through God's grace prevailing over the follies of men there are I hope and charitably suppose many pious men that love God and live good lives yet there are very many doctrines taught by your men which are very ill friends to a good life I instance in your Indulgences and Pardons in which vicious men put a great confidence and rely greatly upon them The doctrine of Purgatory which gives countenance to a sort of Christians who live half to God and half to the world and for them this doctrine hath found out a way that they may go to Hell and to Heaven too The Doctrine that the Priests absolution can turn a trifling Repentance into a perfect and a good and that suddenly too and at any time even on our death-bed or the minute before our death is a dangerous heap of falshoods and gives licence to wicked people and teaches men to reconcile a wicked debauched life with the hopes of Heaven And then for Penances and temporal satisfaction which might seem to be as a plank after the shipwrack of the duty of Repentance to keep men in awe and to preserve them from sinking in an Ocean of Impiety it comes to just nothing by your doctrine for there are so many easie ways of Indulgences and getting Pardons so many Con-fraternities Stations priviledg'd Altars little Offices Agnus Dei's Amulets Hallowed devices Swords Roses Hats Church-yards and the fountain of these annexed Indulgences the Pope himself and his power of granting what and when and to whom he list that he is a very unfortunate man that needs to smart with penances and after all he may chuse to suffer any at all for he may pay them in Purgatory if he please and he may come out of Purgatory upon reasonable terms in case he should think it fit to go thither So that all the whole duty of Repentance seems to be destroyed with devices of men that seek power and gain and find error and folly insomuch that if I had a mind to live an evil Life and yet hope for Heaven at last I would be of your Religion above any in the world But I forget I am writing a Letter I shall therefore desire you to consider upon the Promises which is the safer way For surely it is lawful for a man to serve God without Images but that to worship Images is lawful is not so sure It is lawful to pray to God alone to confess him to be true and every man a lyar to call no man Master upon Earth but to rely upon God
teaching us But it is at least hugely disputable and not at all certain that any man or society of men can be infallible that we may put our trust in Saints in certain extraordinary Images or burn Incense and offer consumptive oblations to the Virgin Mary or make Vows to persons of whose state or place or capacities or condition we have no certain revelation We are sure we do well when in the holy Communion we worship God and Jesus Christ our Saviour but they who also worship what seems to be Bread are put to strange shifts to make themselves believe it to be lawful It is certainly lawful to believe what we see and feel but it is an unnatural thing upon pretence of faith to disbelieve our eyes when our sense and our faith can better be reconciled as it is in the question of the Real Presence as it is taught by the Church of England So that unless you mean to prefer a danger before safety temptation to unholiness before a severe and a holy Religion Unless you mean to lose the benefit of your Prayers by praying what you perceive not and the benefit of the Sacrament in great degrees by falling from Christ's institution and taking half instead of all Unless you desire to provoke God to jealousie by Images and Man to jealousie in professing a Religion in which you may in many cases have leave to forfeit your faith and lawful trust Unless you will still continue to give scandal to those good people with whom you have lived in a common Religion and weaken the hearts of God's afflicted ones Unless you will chuse a Catechism without the Second Commandment and a Faith that grows bigger or less as men please and a Hope that in many degrees relies on men and vain confidences and a Charity that damns all the World but your selves Unless you will do all this that is suffer an abuse in your Prayers in the Sacrament in the Commandments in Faith in Hope in Charity in the Communion of Saints and your duty to your Supreme you must return to the bosom of your Mother the Church of England from whence you have fallen rather weakly than maliciously and I doubt not but you will find the Comfort of it all your Life and in the Day of your Death and in the Day of Judgment If you will not yet I have freed mine own Soul and done an act of Duty and Charity which at least you are bound to take kindly if you will not entertain it obediently Now let me add this That although most of these Objections are such things which are the open and avowed doctrines or practices of your Church and need not to be proved as being either notorious or confessed yet if any of your Guides shall seem to question any thing of it I will bind my self to verifie it to a tittle and in that too which I intend them that is so as to be an Objection obliging you to return under the pain of folly or heresie or disobedience according to the subject matter And though I have propounded these things now to your consideration yet if it be desired I shall represent them to your eye so that even your self shall be able to give sentence in the behalf of Truth In the mean time give me leave to tell you of how much folly you are guilty in being moved by such mock-arguments as your men use when they meet with women and tender consciences and weaker understandings The first is Where was your Church before Luther Now if you had called upon them to speak something against your Religion from Scripture or right Reason or Universal Tradition you had been secure as a Tortoise in her shell a Cart pressed with Sheaves could not have oppressed your cause or person though you had confessed you understood nothing of the mysteries of succession doctrinal or personal For if we can make it appear that our Religion was that which Christ and his Apostles taught let the Truth suffer what Eclipses or prejudices can be supposed let it be hid like the holy fire in the captivity yet what Christ and his Apostles taught us is eternally true and shall by some means or other be conveyed to us even the enemies of Truth have been conservators of that Truth by which we can confute their Errors But if you still ask where it was before Luther I answer it was there where it was after even in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and I know no warrant for any other Religion And if you will expect I should shew any Society of men who professed all the doctrines which are now expressed in the Confession of the Church of England I shall tell you it is unreasonable because some of our Truths are now brought into our publick Confessions that they might be oppos'd against your Errors before the occasion of which there was no need of any such Confessions till you made many things necessary to be professed which are not lawful to be believed For if we believe your superinduc'd follies we shall do unreasonably unconscionably and wickedly but the questions themselves are so useless abstracting from the accidental necessity which your follies have brought upon us that it had been happy if we had never heard of them more than the Saints and Martyrs did in the first Ages of the Church But because your Clergy have invaded the liberty of the Church and multiplied the dangers of damnation and pretend new necessities and have introduc'd new Articles and affright the simple upon new pretensions and slight the very institution and the Commands of Christ and of the Apostles and invent new Sacramentals constituting Ceremonies of their own head and promise grace along with the use of them as if they were not Ministers but Lords of the Spirit and teach for doctrines the commandments of men and make void the Commandment of God by their tradition and have made a strange Body of Divinity therefore it is necessary that we should immure our Faith by the refusal of such vain and superstitious dreams but our Faith was completed at first it is no other than that which was delivered to the Saints and can be no more for ever So that it is a foolish demand to require that we should shew before Luther a Systeme of Articles declaring our sence in these questions It was long before they were questions at all and when they were made questions they remained so a long time and when by their several pieces they were determined this part of the Church was oppressed with a violent power and when God gave opportunity then the yoke was broken and this is the whole progress of this affair But if you will still insist upon it then let the matter be put into equal balances and let them shew any Church whose Confession of Faith was such as was obtruded upon you at Trent and if your Religion be Pius Quartus his Creed
at Trent then we also have a question to ask and that is Where was your Religion before Trent The Council of Trent determined That the Souls departed before the day of Judgment enjoy the Beatifical Vision It is certain this Article could not be shewn in the Confession of any of the ancient Churches for most of the Fathers were of another opinion But that which is the greatest offence of Christendom is not only that these doctrines which we say are false were yet affirmed but that those things which the Church of God did always reject or held as Uncertain should be made Articles of Faith and so become parts of your Religion and of these it is that I again ask the question which none of your side shall ever be able to answer for you Where was your Religion before Trent I could instance in many particulars but I shall name one to you which because the thing of it self is of no great consequence it will appear the more unreasonable and intolerable that your Church should adopt it into the things of necessary belief especially since it was only a matter of fact and they took the false part too For in the 21. Sess. Chap. 4. it is affirmed That although the holy Fathers did give the Sacrament of the Eucharist to Infants yet they did it without any necessity of salvation that is they did not believe it necessary to their salvation Which is notoriously false and the contrary is marked out with the black-lead of every man almost that reads their Works and yet your Council says this is sine controversiâ credendum to be believed without all controversie and all Christians forbidden to believe or teach otherwise So that here it is made an Article of Faith amongst you that a man shall neither believe his reason nor his eyes and who can shew any Confession of Faith in which all the Trent-doctrine was professed and enjoyned under pain of damnation And before the Council of Constance the doctrine touching the Popes power was so new so decried that as Gerson says he hardly should have escaped the note of Heresie that would have said so much as was there defined So that in that Article which now makes a great part of your belief where was your Religion before the Council of Constance And it is notorious that your Council of Constance determined the doctrine of the Half-communion with a Non obstante to Christ's institution that is with a defiance to it or a noted observed neglect of it and with a profession it was otherwise in the Primitive Church Where then was your Religion before John Hus and Hierom of Prague's time against whom that Council was convened But by this instance it appears most certainly that your Church cannot shew her Confessions immediately after Christ and therefore if we could not shew ours immediately before Luther it were not half so much For since you receded from Christ's Doctrine we might well recede from yours and it matters not who or how many or how long they professed your doctrine if neither Christ nor his Apostles did teach it So that if these Articles constitute your Church your Church was invisible at the first and if ours was invisible afterwards it matters not For yours was invisible in the days of light and ours was invisible in the days of darkness For our Church was always visible in the reflections of Scripture and he that had his eyes of Faith and Reason might easily have seen these Truths all the way which constitute our Church But I add yet farther that our Church before Luther was there where your Church was in the same place and in the same persons For divers of the Errors which have been amongst us reformed were not the constituent Articles of your Church before Luther's time for before the last Councils of your Church a man might have been of your Communion upon easier terms and Indulgences were indeed a practice but no Article of Faith before your men made it so and that very lately and so were many other things besides So that although your men cozen the credulous and the simple by calling yours The old Religion yet the difference is vast between Truth and their affirmative even as much as between old Errors and new Articles For although Ignorance and Superstition had prepared the Oar yet the Councils of Constance and Basil and Trent especially were the Forges and the Mint Lastly If your men had not by all the vile and violent arts of the world stopped the mouths of dissenters the question would quickly have been answered or our Articles would have been so confessed so owned and so publick that the question could never have been asked But in despite of all opposition there were great numbers of professors who did protest and profess and practise our doctrines contrary to your Articles as it is demonstrated by the Divines of Germany in Illyricus his Catalogus testium veritatis and in Bishop Morton's Appeal But with your next objection you are better pleased and your men make most noise with it For you pretend that by our confession Salvation may be had in your Church but your men deny it to us and therefore by the confession of both sides you may be safe and there is no question concerning you but of us there is great question for none but our selves say that we can be saved I answer 1. That Salvation may be had in your Church is it ever the truer because we say it If it be not it can add no confidence to you for the Proposition gets no strength by our affirmative But if it be then our authority is good or else our reason and if either be then we have more reason to be believed speaking of our selves because we are concerned to see that our selves may be in a state of hope and therefore we would not venture on this side if we had not greater reason to believe well of our selves than of you And therefore believe us when it is more likely that we have greater reason because we have greater concernments and therefore greater considerations 2. As much charity as your men pretend us to speak of you yet it is a clear case our hope of your Salvation is so little that we dare not venture our selves on your side The Burger of Oldwater being to pass a River in his journey to Daventry bad his man try the ford telling him he hoped he should not be drowned for though he was afraid the River was too deep yet he thought his Horse would carry him out or at least the Boats would fetch him off Such a confidence we may have of you but you will find that but little warranty if you remember how great an interest it is that you venture 3. It would be remembred that though the best ground of your hope is not the goodness of your own faith but the greatness of our charity yet we that charitably
his posterity 870 874. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose the liberty of will 874. The sin of Adam is not in us properly and formally a sin 876. His sin to his posterity is not damnable 877. Of the Covenant God made with Adam 914. The Law of works onely imposed on him 587 n. 1. What evil we really had from Adam's fall 748 n. 14. The following of Adam cannot be original sin 764 n. 28. The fall of Adam lost us not heaven 748 n. 3 4. Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ had been incarnate 748 n. 4. Adam was made mortal 779 n. 4. Those evils that were the effects of Adam's fall are not in us sins properly inherent 750 n. 8. His sin made us not heirs of damnation 714 n. 22. nor makes us necessarily vicious 717 n. 39. Adam's sin did not corrupt our nature by a physical efficiency 717 n. 40. nor because we were in his loins 717 n. 41. nor because of the decree of God 717 n. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifieth 617 n. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning and use of the word 635 n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What latitude of signification it hath 809 n. 39. Aelfrick Who lived in England about A. D. 996. determines against Transubstantiation 266 n. 12. Aerius How he could be an heretick being his errour was not against any fundamental article 150 ss 48. He was never condemned by any general Council 150 ss 48. The heresie of the Acephali what it was 151 ss 48. Aggravate No circumstance aggravates sin so much as that of the injured person 614 n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of that word in the Scripture 639 n. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning and use of the word 638 n. 14. Alms. Are a part of repentance 848 n. 81. How they operate in order to pardon ibid. It is one of the best penances 860 n. 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the word signifieth 617 n. 21. and 619 n. 26. S. Ambrose He was both Bishop and Prefect of Milane at one time 160 ss 49. His testimony against transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. His authority for confirmation by Presbyters considered 19 b. 20 b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The notion of the word 809 n. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The importance of the word 617 n. 122. Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.10 explained 58. § 9. Of worshipping them 467. Antiquity The reverence that is due to it 882. Apostle Whence that name was taken 48 § 4. Bishops were successours of the Apostles ibid. In what sense they were so 47 § 3. Saint James called an Apostle because he was a Bishop 48 § 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ep. to Philip. 2.25 does not signifie Messenger but Apostle 49 § 4. That Bishops were successours in their office to the Apostles was the judgement of antiquity 59 § 10. St. James Bishop of Jerusalem was not one of the twelve Apostles 48 § 4. Apostles in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 85 § 23. That the Canons of the Apostles so called are authentick 89 § 24. Of the Canons that go under their names 981 n. 9. The Apostles were by Christ invested with an equal authority 308. S. Peter did not act as having any superiority over the other Apostles 310 § 10. c. l. 1. Arius His preaching his errours was the cause why in Africk Presbyters were not by Law permitted to preach 128 § 37. How the Orthodox complied with the Arians about the Council of Ariminum 441. How his heresie began 958 n. 26. The opinion of Constantine the Great concerning the heresie of Arius 959 n. 26. How the opposition against his heresie was managed 958 959 960 n. 26 ad 36. Art How much it changes nature 652 n. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The signification of the word 665 n. 18. and 637 n. 8. Athanasius The questions and answers to Antiochus under his name are spurious 544. He intended not his Creed to be imposed on others 963. Concerning his Creed ibid. n. 36. His Creed was first written in Latine then translated into Greek 963 n. 36. Attrition What it is 842 n. 63. and 828 n. 25. The difference between it and contrition ibid. Attrition joyned with absolution by the Priest that it is not sufficient demonstrated by many arguments 830 n. 33. Attrition joyned with confession to a Priest and his absolution is not equal to contrition 842 n. 62 64. S. Augustine He was employed in secular affairs at Hippo as well as Ecclesiastical 161 § 49. His authority against Transubstantiation 261 262 § 12. Of his rule to try traditions Apostolical 432. Gratian quotes that out of him that certainly never was in his writings 451. He prayed for his dead mother when he believed her to be in heaven 501 502. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no article of faith in his time 506. The Purgatory that Augustine sometimes mentions is not the Roman Purgatory 507 508. His authority in the matter of Transubstantiation 525 His zeal against the Pelagians was the occasion of his mistake in interpreting Rom. VII 15 775 n. 18. His inconstancy in the question whether concupiscence be a sin 913. Austerity Of the acts of austerity in Religion of what use they are 955 n. 18. Authority That is most effectual which is seated in the Conscience 160 § 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the Apostle means by it Tit. III. 11 780 n. 30. and 951 n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifieth 689 n. 5. B. Baptism THE doctrine of Infant-Baptism relieth not upon tradition onely but Scripture too 425 426. S. Ambrose S. Hierome and S. Augustine though born of Christian parents were not baptized till they were at full age 425. The reason why the Church baptizeth Infants 426. An answer to that saying of Perron's That there is no place of Scripture whereby we can certainly convince the Anabaptists 426. The validity of the baptism of hereticks is not to be proved by tradition without Scripture 426 427. Of the salvation of unbaptized Infants that are born of Christian parents 471. Of the Scripture Liturgy in an unknown tongue 471. The promise of quorum remiseritis is by some understood of Baptism 486. Of the pardon of sins after baptism 802 n. 7. Saint Cyprian and S. Chrysostome's testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. The principle on which the necessity of Infants baptism is grounded 426 and 718 n. 42. Sins committed after it may be pardoned by repentance 802 n. 8 9. It admits us into the Covenant of repentance 803 n. 10. If we labour not under the guilt of original sin why in our infancy are we baptized That objection answered 884. The state of unbaptized Infants 897. The difference between this Chrism and that of Confirmation 20 b. The difference between Baptism and Confirmation as to the use 26 b. Of the change
n. 22. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. Church Neither it alone nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by substitution ibid. No Church-presidency ever given to the Laiety 114 § 36. Whether secular power can give prohibitions against the power of the Church 122. § 36. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops 148 § 45. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after secular imployments 157 § 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends 158 § 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it gradu impedimenti 159 § 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold-cares as secular imployment 160 § 49. Lay-Elders never had authority in the Church 165 § 51. What the Church signifieth 382 383. Wicked men are not true members of it 383. In what sense Saint Paul calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth 386 387. What truth that is of which the Church is the pillar 387. Whether the representative Church be infallible 389. The word Church is never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Of the meaning of that of our Lord Tell the Church 389. Of the notes of the Church 402. Scripture is more credible then the Church 407. Some rites which the Apostles injoyned the Christian Church does not now practise 430. The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to salvation 436. The Roman is not the Mother of all Churches 449. The authority of the Church of Rome they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. When in the question between the Church and the Scripture they distinguish between authority quoad nos in se it salves not the difficulty 451. Eckius's pitiful Argument to prove the authority of the Church to be above the Scripture 451. The Church is such a Judge of Controversies that they must all be decided before you can find him 1012. Success and worldly prosperity no note of the true Church 1018. Clemens Alexandrinus His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. In Vossius his opinion he understood not original sin 759 n. 20. Clergy The word Church never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Clinicks Objections against the repentance of Clinicks 678 n. 57. and 677 n. 56. and 679 n. 64. Heathens newly baptized if they die immediately need no other repentance ibid. The objection concerning the Thief on the Cross answered 681 n. 65. Testimonies of the Ancients against the repentance of Clinicks 682 n. 66. The way of treating sinners who repent not till their death-bed 695 n. 25. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of Clinicks 696 n. 29. What hopes penitent Clinicks have according to the opinion of the Fathers of the Church 696 697 n. 30. The manner how the ancient Church treated penitent Clinicks 699 n. 5. The particular acts and parts of repentance that are fittest for a dying man 700 n. 32. The practice of the Primitive Fathers about penitent Clinicks 804. The repentance of Clinicks 853 n. 96. Colossians Chap. 2.18 explained 781 n. 31. Commandment Of the difference between S. Augustine and S. Hierome in the proposition about the possibility of keeping God's Commandments 579 n. 30. Communicate To doe it in act or desire are not terms opposite but subordinate 190 § 3. Commutations When they were first set up 292. Amends may be made for some sins by a commutation of duties 648 68. Comparative Instances in Texts of Scripture wherein comparative and restrained negatives are set down in an absolute form 229 § 10. Concupiscence It is not a mortal sin till it proceeds farther 776 n. 20. It is an evil but not a sin 734 n. 84. It is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin 752 n. 11. Natural inclinations are but sins of infirmity 789 n. 50. Where it is not consented to it is no sin 752 n. 11. and 765 n. 30. and 767 n. 39. and 898 907 909 911 912 876. The natural inclination to evil that is in every man is not sin 766 n. 32. It is not original sin 911. The inconstancy of S. Augustine about it 913. Confession According to the Roman doctrine Confession does not restrain sin and quiets not the Conscience 315 § 2. c. 2. A right confesfession according to the Roman Doctrine is not possible 316 § 3. The seal of Confession they will not suffer to be broken if it be to save the life of the Prince or the whole State 343 c. 3. § 2. The Roman doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Nectarius abolished the custome of having sins published in the Church 474 488 492. That the seal of confession is broken among them upon divers great occasions 475. Whether to confess all our great sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation 477. Of the harmony of Confession made by the Reformed 899. Nothing of auricular confession to a Priest in Scripture 479. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for auricular confession 491. Auricular confession made an instrument to carry on unlawful plots 488 489. Father Arnold Confessor to Lewis XIII of France did cause the King in private confession to take such an oath as did in a manner depose him 489. Auricular confession leaves behind it an eternal scruple upon the Conscience 489. Auricular confession is an instance of the Romanists teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 477. Confession is a necessary act of repentance 830 n. 34. It is due to God 831. Why we are to confess sins to God who knoweth them before 832 n. 37. What properly is meant by it ibid. Auricular confession whence it descended 833 41. Confession to a Priest is no part of contrition ibid. The benefit of confessing to a Priest 834. Rules concerning the practice of confession 854 n. 100. Shame should not hinder confession 855 n. 104. A rule to be observed by the Minister that receiveth confession 856 n. 105. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister 857 n. 109. Confession in preparation to the Sacrament 857 n. 110. Confirmation It was not to expire with the age of the Apostles 53 § 8. Photius was the first that gave the power of Confirmation to Presbyters 109 § 33. The words Signator consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifie Baptismal unction 110 § 33. The great benefit and need of the rite of Confirmation in the Church Ep. ded to that Treatise pag. 2. The Latine Church would have sold the title of Confirmation to the Greek but they would not buy it Ep. ded pag. 5. The Papists hold Confirmation to be a Sacrament and yet not necessary 3. b. That it is a Divine Ordinance 3 4. b. Of the necessity of
Pope Nicholas II. defined the Capernaitical sense of Transubstantiation 992 n. 10. Gregory Nazianzen's opinion concerning Episcopal Councils in his time 993. Creed The Ephesine Council did decree against enlarging Creeds 290 c. 1. § 2. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new Articles as necessarily to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Article of Christ's descent into Hell omitted in some Creeds 440. What stir it made in the Primitive Church to add but one word to the Creed though it were done onely by way of Explication 440. The Fathers complained of the dismal troubles in the Church upon enlarging Creeds 441. The addition to the Creed at Nice produced above thirty explicative Creeds soon after 441. The Councils of Nice and Chalcedon did decree against enlarging Creeds 441. They did not forbid onely things contrary but even explicative additions 441 442. The imperial Edict of Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius considered and the argument from it answered 443. The sense of that Article in the Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church 448. The Romanists have corrupted the Creed by restraining that Article to the Roman Church 448. The end of making Creeds 942 n. 7. and 960 n. 30. They are the standard by which Heresie is tried 957 n. 22. The article of Christ's descent into Hell was not in the ancient copies of the Creed 943 n. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How this word is sometimes used in Scripture 885 887 888 889 902. Saint Cyprian His authorities alledged in behalf of the Presbyters and people's interest in governing the Church answered 145 146 § 44. He did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters ibid. A Text of Saint Cyprian contrary to the Supremacy of Saint Peter's successors 155 § 48. His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. The Sermons de coena Domini usually imputed to him are not his but seem to be the works of Arnoldus de Bona villa 680 n. 64. and 259 § 1◠He affirms that Pope Steven had not superiority of power over Bishops of forrein Dioceses 310. When Pope Stephen decreed against Saint Cyprian in the point of rebaptizing hereticks Saint Cyprian regarded it not nor changed his opinion 399. Saint Cyprian against Purgatory 513 514. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. He for his errour about rebaptization was no heretick but his Scholars were 957 958 n. 22. When Pope Stephen excommunicated him Saint Cyprian was thought the better Catholick 957 n. 22. Cyril His testimony alledged that the bread in the Eucharist is not bread answered fully 229 § 10. His testimony against the worship of Images 306. D. Damnation HOW this word and the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sometimes used in Scripture 885 898 902. Deacon He might in the ancient Church give absolution 484. Death How to treat a dying man being in despair 677 n. 56. In Spain they execute not a condemned criminal till his Confessour give him a bene discessit 678 n. 56. Deathbed-repentance How secure and easie some make it 567. Delegation Saint Paul made delegation of his power 163 § 50. Other examples of like delegation 164 § 50. Demonstration Silhon thinks a moral Demonstration to be the best way of proving the immortality of the soul 357. Demonstration is not needful but where there is an aequilibrium of probabilities 362. Probability is as good as demonstration where there is no shew of reason against it 362. Of moral demonstration what it is 368 369. Despair A caution to be observed by them that minister comfort to those that are nigh to despair 852 n. 95. and 677. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of penitent Clinicks 696 n. 29. Devil The manner of casting him out by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of the word 635 n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the use and signification of those words 903. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning thereof 639 n. 15. Diocese Episcopal Dioceses in the primitive notion of them had no subordination and distinction of Parishes 140 § 43. Which was first a particular Congregation or a Diocese 141 § 43. Dionysius Areopagita His authority against Transubstantiation 266 § 12. His testimony against Purgatory 513 514. Disputing Two brothers the one a Protestant the other a Papist disputed to convert one another and in the event each of them converted the other 460. Division Of the Divisions in the Church of Rome 403. Doctrine Oral tradition was not usefull to convey Doctrines 354 355 358. What is meant by that reproof our Lord gave the Pharisees of teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 471 472. The Romanists doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Durandus His opinion in the question of Transubstantiation 520. E. Ecclesiastes Chap. 5.2 And let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing before God explained 2. n. 8 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifies 637 n. 10. Education The force of it in the choice of Religion 1018 1019. Elections Against popular elections in the Church 131 § 40. How it came to pass that in the Acts of the Apostles the people seem to exercise the power of electing the Seven Deacons 131 § 40. The people's approbation in the choice of the superiour Clergy was sometimes taken how and upon what reason 132 § 40. England The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick prayers 328 c. 2. § 8. The character of the Church of England 346. The great charity of the Protestant Church in England 460. Upon what ground we put Roman Priests to death 464. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. When Image-worship first came in hither 550. Ephesians Chap. 2. v. 3. by nature children of wrath explained 722 n. 50. Chap. 2.5 dead in sins explained 909. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the signification of it 900. Ephrem Syrus His authority against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. Epiphanius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. His authority against the worship of Images 306. The testimony against Images out of his Epistle 536. He mistook and misreported the Heresie of Montanus 955 n. 18. Equivocation The Romanists defend Equivocation and mental reservation 340 c. 3. § 1. Evangelist What that office was 69 § 14. That office was not inconsistent with the office of a Bishop ibid. Eucharist The real presence of Christ is not to be searched into too curiously as to the manner of it 182 § 1. The Pope forced Berengarius to recant in the Capernaitical sense 191 § 3. and 299. The meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 199 § 4. That Sacrament does imitate the words used at the Passeover as
16 17 18. explained 782 n. 32. and Chap. 5.24 He that is in Christ hath crucified the flesh with the affections explained 794 n. 58. and Chap. 5.17 The spirit lusteth against the flesh explained 810 n. 40. Gelasius Bishop of Rome was the authour of the Book de duabus naturis contra Eutychetem 265 § 12. His words about Transubstantiation considered Genesis Chap. 6. v. 5. Every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart onely evil explained 720 n. 47. and Chap. 8. v. 21. The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth explained 721 n. 48. H. Ghost The Divinity of the Holy Ghost was not decreed at Nice 424. The procession of the Holy Ghost may be proved by Scripture without Tradition 427 428. What is the sin against the Holy Ghost 810 n. 43. Final impenitence proved not to be the sin against the Holy Ghost 811 n. 42. That the sin against the Holy Ghost is pardonable 812 n. 48. In what sense it is affirmed in Scripture that the sin against the Holy Ghost shall not be pardoned in this world nor in the world to come 812 n. 52 53. Glory Concerning the degrees of eternal glory 968 n. 5. God Of his power to doe things impossible 233 § 11. Ubiquity an incommunicable attribute of God's 237 § 12. and 241. To picture God the Father or the Trinity is against the Primitive practice 307. The Romanists teach that the Pope hath power to dispense with all the laws of God 342. No man is tempted of God 737 n. 90. Gospel The difference between it and the Law 574. Of the possibility of keeping the Evangelical Law 576. What is required in the Gospel 588 n. 9. It is nothing else but faith and repentance 599 n. 1 2. The righteousness of the Law and Gospel how they differ 673 n. 46. Grace Pope Adrian taught that a man out of the state of Grace may merit for another in the state of Grace 320 321. The Romanists attribute the conveying of Grace to things of their own inventing 337 § 11. They teach that the Sacraments do not onely convey Grace but supply the defect of it 337. To be in the state of Grace is of very large signification 643 n. 31. The just measures and latitude of a man's being in the state of Grace 643 n. 32. How it works 679. n. 52. ad 56. What it signifieth to be in the state of Grace 643 n. 31. There is a transcendent habit of Grace and what it is 685. n. 68. How the necessity of Grace is consistent with the doctrine of Free-will 754 n. 15. By the strengths of mere Nature men cannot get to heaven 885. Greek Photius was the first authour of the Schism between the Greek and Latine Church 109 § 33. The Greek Church receive not the Article of Transubstantiation Ep. Ded. to Real Pres. 175. The Greek Church disowns Purgatory 297. The opinion of the Greek Church concerning Purgatory 510. Gregory Gregory Bishop of Rome reproved the Patriarch of Constantinople for calling himself Universal Bishop 310. Guilt It cannot properly be traduced from one person to another 902 915. Against that notion That guilt cleaveth to the nature though not to the person 910. H. Habits A Single act of sin without a habit gives a denomination 641 n. 25. Sins are damnable that cannot be habitual 641 n. 24. A sinful habit hath a guilt distinct from that of the act 659 n. 1. Sinful habits require a distinct manner of repentance 669 n. 31. Seven objections against that Assertion answered 675 n. 51. Of infused habits 676. The method of mortifying vicious habits 690 691 n. 9 10. How and in what cases a single act may be accounted habitual 648 n. 50. Of sinful habits and their threefold capacity 659 n. 4. 'T is not true to affirm That every reluctancy to an act of vertue that proceeds from the habit of the contrary vice if it be overcome increases the reward 661 n. 6. ad 9. A vicious habit adds many degrees of aversation from God 669 n. 9. Evil habits do not only imply a facility but a kind of necessity 662 n. 11. A vicious habit makes our repentances the more difficult 663 n. 14. A vicious habit makes us swallow a great sin as easily as the least 664 n. 15. It keeps us always out of God's favour 665 n. 18. A sinful habit denominates the man guilty though he exert no actions 666 n. 23. Smaller sins if habitual discompose our state of Grace 667 n. 24. Habitual concupiscence needs pardon as much as natural 667 n. 26. Saint Augustine endeavours to prove that a sinful habit has a special sinfulness distinct from that of evil actions and Pelagius did gainsay it 667 n. 26. Every habit of vice is naturally expelled by a habit of vertue 669 n. 34. Though to extirpate a vicious habit by a contrary habit is not meritorious of pardon yet it is necessary in order to the obtaining pardon 670 n. 36. To oppose a habit against a habit is a more proper and effectual remedy then to oppose an act of sorrow or repentance against an act of sin 670 n. 38. In re morali there is no such thing as infused habits 676 n. 53. Hands Of laying on of hands in absolution 838 n. 54. Imposition of hands was twice solemnly had in repentance 840 841 n. 57. Heathen Their practice in their hymns and prayers to their gods pag. 3 n. 11. They could not worship an Image terminativè 338. The Heathens did condemn the worship of Images 546. Heaven In a natural state we cannot hope for Heaven 737 n. 85. Epistle to the Hebrews Chap. 6. v. 1 2. Of the foundation of laying on of hands explained 10 11 b. That the Apostle there in speaking of the laying on of hands means Confirmation and not either Absolution or Ordination 10 11 b. Chap. 9.28 expl 712 n. 15. Chap. 7.27 expl 712. n. 17. Chap. 5.23 explained 712. Chap. 6.4 5 6. explained ibid. Chap. 10.26 explained 809 n. 36. Hell The Article of Christ's descent into Hell was not in the ancient copies of the Creed 943 n. 8. Heresie How Aërius could be an Heretick seeing his errour was against no fundamental doctrine 150 § 48. The notion of Heresie was anciently more comprehensive then now it is ibid. In the first Council of Constantinople he is declared an heretick that believes right but separates from his Bishop 151 § 48. The Heresie of the Acephali what it was ibid. A Son or Wife they absolve from duty if the Father or Husband be heretical 345. The Pope takes upon him to depose Kings not heretical 345. The Fathers style some hereticks that are not 376. An heretical Pope is no Pope 401. What Popes have been heretical ibid. and 402. The validity of Baptism by hereticks is not to be proved by Tradition without Scripture 426 427. Divers hereticks did worship the picture of our Lord and were reproved for it 545. Pope John XXII
as to agree with Scripture and reason and as may best glorifie God and that they require it I will not pretend to believe that those Doctors who first fram'd the Article did all of them mean as I mean I am not sure they did or that they did not but this I am sure that they fram'd the words with much caution and prudence and so as might abstain from grieving the contrary minds of differing men And I find that in the Harmony of confessions printed in Cambridge 1586 and allowed by publick Authority there is no other account given of the English confession in this Article but that every Person is born in sin and leadeth his life in sin and that no body is able truly to say his heart is clean That the most righteous person is but an unprofitable servant That the Law of God is perfect and requireth of us perfect and full obedience that we are able by no means to fulfill that Law in this worldly life that there is no mortal Creature which can be justified by his own deserts in God's sight Now this was taken out of the English Confession inserted in the General Apology written in the year 1562 in the very year the Articles were fram'd I therefore have reason to believe that the excellent men of our Church Bishops and Priests did with more Candor and Moderation opine in this Question and therefore when by the violence and noises of some parties they were forced to declare something they spake warily and so as might be expounded to that Doctrine which in the General Apology was their allowed sence However it is not unusual for Churches in matters of difficulty to frame their Articles so as to serve the ends of peace and yet not to endanger truth or to destroy liberty of improving truth or a further reformation And since there are so very many Questions and Opinions in this point either all the Dissenters must be allowed to reconcile the Article and their Opinion or must refuse her Communion which whosoever shall inforce is a great Schismatick and an Uncharitable Man This only is certain that to tye the Article and our Doctrine together is an excellent art of peace and a certain signification of obedience and yet is a security of truth and that just liberty of Understanding which because it is only God's subject is then sufficiently submitted to Men when we consent in the same form of words The Article is this Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam as the Pelagians do vainly talk 28. THE following of Adam that is the doing as he did is actual sin and in no sence can it be Original sin for that is as vain as if the Pelagians had said the second is the first and it is as impossible that what we do should be Adam's sin as it is unreasonable to say that his should be really and formally our sin Imitation supposes a Copy and those are two termes of a Relation and cannot be coincident as like is not the same But then if we speak of Original sin as we have our share in it yet cannot our imitation of Adam be it possibly it may be an effect of it or a Consequent But therefore Adam's sin did not introduce a necessity of sinning upon us for if it did Original sin would be a fatal curse by which is brought to pass not only that we do but that we cannot choose but follow him and then the following of Adam would be the greatest part of Original sin expresly against the Article 29. But it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every Man The fault vitium Naturae so it is in the Latine Copyes not a sin properly Non talia sunt vitia quae jam peccata dicenda sunt but a disease of the Soul as blindness or crookedness that is it is an imperfection or state of deficiency from the end whither God did design us we cannot with this nature alone go to Heaven for it having been debauch'd by Adam and disrobed of all its extraordinaries and graces whereby it was or might have been made fit for Heaven it is returned to its own state which is perfect in its kind that is in order to all natural purposes but imperfect in order to supernatural whither it was design'd The case is this The eldest Son of Craesus the Lydian was born dumb and by the fault of his Nature was unfit to govern the Kingdom therefore his Father passing him by appointed the Crown to his younger Brother But he in a Battail seeing his Father in danger to be slain in Zeal to save his Fathers life strain'd the ligatures of his tongue till that broke which bound him by returning to his speech he returned to his title We are born thus imperfect unfit to raign with God for ever and can never return to a title to our inheritance till we by the grace of God be redintegrate and made perfect like Adam that is freed from this state of imperfection by supernatural aides and by the grace of God be born again Corruption This word is exegetical of the other and though it ought not to signifie the diminution of the powers of the soul not only because the powers of the soul are not corruptible but because if they were yet Adams sin could not do it since it is impossible that an act proper to a faculty should spoil it of which it is rather perfective and an act of the will can no more spoil the will than an act of understanding can lessen the understanding Yet this word Corruption may mean a spoiling or disrobing our Nature of all its extraordinary investitures that is supernatural gifts and graces a Comparative Corruption so as Moses's face when the light was taken from it or a Diamond which is more glorious by a reflex ray of the Sun when the light was taken off falls into darkness and yet loses nothing of its Nature But Corruption relates to the body not to the soul and in this Article may very properly and aptly be taken in the same sence as it is used by S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. The body is sown in Corruption that is in all the effects of its mortality and this indeed is a part of Original sin or the effect of Adams sin it introduc'd Natural Corruption or the affections of mortality the solemnities of death for indeed this is the greatest parth of Original sin Fault and Corruption mean the Concupiscence and Mortality Of the Nature of every man This gives light to the other and makes it clear it cannot be in us properly a sin for sin is an affection of persons not of the whole Nature for an Universal cannot be the subject of circumstances and particular actions and personal proprieties as humane Nature cannot be said to be drunk or to commit adultery now because sin is an action or omission and it is made up of many particularities it cannot be