meddle with causes Ecclesiastical nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church or Councils Oecumenical They must not meddle for these things appertain to the cognizance of Bishops and their decision And now after all this what authority is equal to this Legislative of the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle They are all evidences of power and authority to deliberate to determine or judge to make laws But to make laws is the greatest power that is imaginable The first may belong fairly enough to Presbyters but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops SECT XLII And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks LASTLY as if all the acts of Jurisdiction and every imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy the Presbyters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri the Bishops Presbyters as having a propriety in them and therefore a superiority over them and as the Bishop was a dispencer of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae so he was of the persons too a Ruler in propriety * S. Hilary in the book which himself delivered to Constantine Ecclesiae adhuc saith he per Presbyteros meos communionem distribuens I still give the holy Communion to the faithful people by my Presbyters And therefore in the third Council of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerk of his Bishop to be promoted in another Church Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri saith Posthumianus If the Bishop have but one Presbyter must one be taken from him Id sequor saith Aurelius ut conveniam Episcopum ejus atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur And it was resolved Vt Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo No man shall retain anothers Bishop without the consent of the Bishop whose Clerk he is * When Athanasius was abused by the calumny of the hereticks his adversaries and entred to purge himself Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero suo He comes in with Timothy his Presbyter and Arsenius cujus brachium dicebatur excisum lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii Arsenius was Athanasius His Reader Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii c. Macarius was another of Athanasius his Priests So Theodoret Peter and Irenaeus were two more of his Presbyters as himself witnesses Paulinianus sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerk Sed ejus à quo ordinatur His Clerk who did ordain But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances The summ is this The question was whether or no and how far the Bishops had Superiority over Presbyters in the Primitive Church Their doctrine and practice have furnished us with these particulars The power of Church goods and the sole dispensation of them and a propriety of persons was reserved to the Bishop For the Clergy and Church possessions were in his power in his administration the Clergy might not travel without the Bishops leave they might not be preferred in another Diocess without license of their own Bishop in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to prefer them and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it without him they might not baptize not consecrate the Eucharist not communicate not reconcile penitents not preach not only not without his ordination but not without a special faculty besides the capacity of their order The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonical impositions even by the decree of the Apostles themselves and the doctrine of Ignatius and the constitution of S. Clement of the Fathers in the Council of Arles Ancyra and Toledo and many others The Bishops were declared to be Judges in ordinary of the Clergy and people of their Diocess by the concurcurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice Ephesus Chalcedon in Carthage Antioch Sardis Aquileia Taurinum Agatho and by the Emperor and by the Apostles and all this attested by the constant practice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church inflicting censures upon delinquents and absolving them as they saw cause and by the dogmatical resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopal function that they have supreme and universal spiritual power viz. in the sence above explicated over all the Clergy and Laity of the Diocess as That they are higher than all power the image of God the figure of Christ Christs Vicar President of the Church Prince of Priests of authority imcomparable unparallell'd power and many more if all this be witness enough of the superiority of Episcopal jurisdiction we have their depositions we may proceed as we see cause for and reduce our Episcopacy to the Primitive state for that is truly a reformation Id Dominicum quod primum id haereticum quod posterius and then we shall be sure Episcopacy will lose nothing by these unfortunate contestations SECT XLIII Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes BUT against the cause it is objected super totam Materiam that Bishops were not Diocesan but Parochial and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village or City Priests shall advance their Pulpit as high as the Bishops throne * Well! Put case they were not Diocesan but parish Bishops what then yet they were such Bishops as had Presbyters and Deacons in subordination to them in all the particular advantages of the former instances 2. If the Bishops had the Parishes what cure had the Priests so that this will debase the Priests as much as the Bishops and if it will confine a Bishop to a Parish it will make that no Presbyter can be so much as a Parish-Priest If it brings a Bishop lower than a Diocess it will bring the Priest lower than a Parish For set a Bishop where you will either in a Diocess or a Parish a Presbyter shall still keep the same duty and subordination the same distance still So that this objection upon supposition of the former discourse will no way mend the matter for any side but make it far worse it will not advance the Presbytery but it will depress the whole Hierarchy and all the orders of Holy Church * But because this trifle is so much used amongst the enemies of Episcopacy I will consider it in little and besides that it does no body any good advantage I will represent it in its fucus and shew the falshood of it 1. Then It is evident that there were Bishops before there were any distinct Parishes For the first division of Parishes in the West was by Evaristus who lived almost 100 years after Christ and divided Rome into seven Parishes assigning to every one a Presbyter So Damasus reports of him in the
witness 2. I consider that necessity may excuse a personal delinquency but I never heard that necessity did build a Church Indeed no man is forced for his own particular to commit a sin for if it be absolutely a case of necessity the action ceaseth to be a sin but indeed if God means to build a Church in any place he will do it by means proportionable to that end that is by putting them into a possibility of doing and acquiring those things which himself hath required of necessity to the constitution of a Church * So that supposing that ordination by a Bishop is necessary for the vocation of Priests and Deacons as I have proved it is and therefore for the founding or perpetuating of a Church either God hath given to all Churches opportunity and possibility of such Ordinations and then necessity of the contrary is but pretence and mockery or if he hath not given such possibility then there is no Church there to be either built or continued but the Candlestick is presently removed There are divers stories in Ruffinus to this purpose When Aedesius and Frumenâ—ius were surprized by the Barbarous Indians they preached Christianity and baptized many but themselves being but Lay-men could make no Ordinations and so not fix a Church What then was to be done in the case Frumentius Alexandriam pergit rem omnem ut gesta est narrat Episcopo ac monet ut provideat virum aliquem dignum quem congregatis jam plurimis Christianis in Barbarico solo Episcopum mittat Frumentius comes to Alexandria to get a Bishop Athanasius being then Patriarch ordained Frumentius their Bishop Et tradito ei Sacerdotio redire eum cum Domini Gratiâ unde venerat jubet ex quo saith Ruffinus in Indiae partibus populi Christianorum Ecclesiae factae sunt Sacerdotium coepit The same happened in the case of the Iberians converted by a Captive woman Posteà verò quà m Ecclesia magnificè constructa est populi fidem Dei majore ardore sâ—â—â—ebant captivae monitis ad Imperatorem Constantinum totius Gentis legatio mittitur Res gesta exponitur Sacerdotes mittere oratur qui coeptum erga se Dei munus implerent The work of Christianity could not be compleated nor a Church founded without the Ministery of Bishops * Thus the case is evident that the want of a Bishop will not excuse us from our endeavours of acquiring one and where God means to found a Church there he will supply them with those means and Ministeries which himself hath made of ordinary and absolute necessity And therefore if it happens that those Bishops which are of ordinary Ministration amongst us prove heretical still Gods Church is Catholick and though with trouble yet Orthodox Bishops may be acquir'd For just so it happened when Mauvia Queen of the Saracens was so earnest to have Moses the Hermite made the Bishop of her Nation and offered peace to the Catholicks upon that condition Lucius an Arian troubled the affair by his interposing and offering to ordain Moses The Hermite discovered his vileness Et ita majore dedecore deformatus compulsus est acquiescere Moses refus'd to be ordain'd by him that was an Arian So did the reform'd Churches refuse ordinations by the Bishops of the Roman Communion But what then might they have done Even the same that Moses did in that necessity Compulsus est ab Episcopis quos in exilium truserat Lucius sacerdotium sumere Those good people might have had order from the Bishops of England or the Lutheran Churches if at least they thought our Churches Catholick and Christian. If an ordinary necessity will not excuse this will not an extraordinary calling justifie it Yea most certainly could we but see an ordinary proof for an extraordinary calling viz. an evident prophesie demonstration of Miracles certainty of reason clarity of sence or any thing that might make faith of an extraordinary mission But shall we then condemn those few of the Reformed Churches whose ordinations always have been without Bishops No indeed That must not be They stand or fall to their own Master And though I cannot justifie their ordinations yet what degree their necessity is of what their desire of Episcopal ordinations may do for their personal excuse and how far a good life and a Catholick belief may lead a man in the way to Heaven although the forms of external communion be not observed I cannot determine * For ought I know their condition is the same with that of the Church of Pergamus I know thy works and where thou dwellest even where Sathans seat is and thou heldest fast my faith and hast not denied my Name Nihilominus habeo adversus te pauca Some few things I have against thee and yet of them the want of Canonical ordinations is a defect which I trust themselves desire to be remedied but if it cannot be done their sin indeed is the less but their misery the Greater * I am sure I have said sooth but whether or no it will be thought so I cannot tell and yet why it may not I cannot guess unless they only be impeccable which I suppose will not so easily be thought of them who themselves think that all the Church possibly may fail But this I would not have declared so freely had not the necessity of our own Churches required it and that the first pretence of the legality and validity of their ordinations been buoyed up to the height of an absolute necessity for else why shall it be called Tyranny in us to call on them to conform to us and to the practice of the Catholick Church and yet in them be called a good and a holy zeal to exact our conformity to them But I hope it will so happen to us that it will be verified here what was once said of the Catholicks under the fury of Justina Sed tantafuit perseverantia fidelium populorum ut animas prius amittere quà m Episcopum mallent If it were put to our choice rather to dye to wit the death of Martyrs not rebels than lose the sacred order and offices of Episcopacy without which no Priest no ordination no consecration of the Sacrament no absolution no rite or Sacrament legitimately can be performed in order to eternity The summe is this If the Canons and Sanctions Apostolical if the decrees of eight famous Councils in Christendom of Ancyra of Antioch of Sardis of Alexandria two of Constantinople the Arausican Council and that of Hispalis if the constant successive Acts of the famous Martyr-Bishops of Rome making ordinations if the testimony of the whole Pontifical book if the dogmatical resolution of so many Fathers S. Denis S. Cornelius S. Athanasius S. Hierom S. Chrysostom S. Epiphanius S. Austin and divers others all appropriating ordinations to the Bishops hand if the constant voice of Christendom declaring ordinations made by Presbyters to be null and void in
Christ said Non designando officium but Sortem not their duty but their lot intimating that their future condition should not be honorary but full of trouble not advanc'd but persecuted But I had rather insist on the first answer in which I desire it be remembred that I said seeking temporal Principality to be forbidden the Apostles as an Appendix to the office of an Apostle For in other capacities Bishops are as receptive of honour and temporal principalities as other men Bishops ut sic are not secular Princes must not seek for it But some secular Princes may be Bishops as in Germany and in other places to this day they are For it is as unlawful for a Bishop to have any Land as to have a Country and a single Acre is no more due to the Order than a Province but both these may be conjunct in the same person though still by vertue of Christ's precept the functions and capacities must be distinguished according to the saying of Synesius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To confound and intermix the Kingdom and the Priesthood is to joyn things incompossible and inconsistent Inconsistent I say not in person but absolutely discrepant in function 3. Consider we that Saint Peter when he speaks of the dutious subordination of Sarah to her Husband Abraham he propounds her as an example to all married women in these words She obeyed Abraham and called him Lord why was this spoken to Christian women but that they should do so too And is it imaginable that such an honourable compellation as Christ allows every woman to give to her Husband a Mechanick a hard-handed Artisan he would forbid to those eminent Pillars of his Church those Lights of Christendom whom he really indued with a plenitude of power for the Regiment of the Catholick Church Credat Apella 4. Pastor and Father are as honourable titles as any They are honourable in Scripture Honour thy Father c. Thy Father in all sences They are also made sacred by being the appellatives of Kings and Bishops and that not only in secular addresses but even in holy Scripture as is known Add to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used in Scripture for the Prelates of the Church and I am certain that Duke and Captain Rulers and Commanders are but just the same in English that the other are in Greek and the least of these is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lord. And then if we consider that since Christ erected a spiritual Regiment and us'd words of secular honour to express it as in the instances above although Christ did interdict a secular principality yet he forbad not a secular title He us'd many himself 5. The voice of the Spouse the holy Church hath alwayes expressed their honourable estimate in reverential Compellations and Epithets of honour to their Bishops and have taught us so to do * Bishops were called Principes Ecclesiarum Princes of the Churches I had occasion to instance it in the question of jurisdiction Indeed the third Councel of Carthage forbad the Bishop of Carthage to be called Princeps Sacerdotum or summus sacerdos or aliquid hujusmodi but only primae sedis Episcopus I know not what their meaning was unless they would dictate a lesson of humility to their Primate that he might remember the principality not to be so much in his person as in the See for he might be called Bishop of the prime See But whatsoever fancy they had at Carthage I am sure it was a guise of Christendom not to speak of Bishops sine praefatione honoris but with honourable mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To our most blessed Lord. So the Letters were superscribed to Julius Bishop of Rome from some of his Brethren in Sozomen Let no man speak Untruths of me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor of my Lords the Bishops said Saint Gregory Nazianzen The Synodical book of the Councel of Constantinople is inscribed Dominis Reverendissimis ac piissimis Fratribus ac Collegis Damaso Ambrosio c. To our most Reverend Lords and holy Brethren c. And the Councel of Illyricum sending their Synodal letters to the Bishops of Asia by Bishop Elpidius Haec pluribus say they persequi non est visum quòd miserimus unum ex omnibus Dominum Collegam nostrum Elpidium qui cognosceret esset ne sicut dictum fuerat à Domino Collegâ nostro Eustathio Our Lord and Brother Elpidius Our Lord and Brother Eustathius * The Oration in the Councel of Epaunum begins thus Quod praecipientibus tantis Dominis meis ministerium proferendi sermonis assumo c. The Prolocutor took that office on him at the command of so many Great Lords the Bishops * When the Church of Spain became Catholick and abjured the Arian heresie King Recaredus in the third Councel of Toledo made a speech to the Bishops Non incognitum reor esse vobis Reverendissimi Sacerdotes c. Non credimus vestram latere Sanctitatem c. Vestra Cognovit Beatitudo c. Venerandi Patres c. And these often Your Holiness your Blessedness Most Reverend Venerable Fathers Those were the Addresses the King made to the Fathers of the Synod Thus it was when Spain grew Catholick but not such a Speech to be found in all the Arian Records They amongst them used but little Reverence to their Bishops But the instances of this kind are innumerable Nothing more ordinary in Antiquity than to speak of Bishops with the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Domine verè Sancte suscipiende Papa So Saint Hierom a Presbyter to Saint Austin a Bishop Secundùm enim honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyteria major est saith Saint Austin Episcopacy is greater than the office and dignity of a Presbyter according to the Titles of Honour which the custom of the Church hath introduced But I shall sum up these particulars in a total which is thus expressed by Saint Chrysostom Haeretici à Diabolo Honorum vocabula Episcopis non dare didicerunt Hereticks have learned of the Devil not to give due titles of honour to Bishops The good Patriarch was angry surely when he said so * For my own particular I am confident that my Lords the Bishops do so undervalue any fastuous or pompous title that were not the duty of their people in it they would as easily reject them as it is our duty piously to use them But if they still desire appellatives of honour we must give them they are their due if they desire them not they deserve them much more So that either for their humility or however for their works sake we must highly honour them that have the rule over us It is the precept of S. Paul and S. Cyprian observing how curious our blessed Saviour was that he might give honour to the Priests of the Jews even then
be said he was deceived when he said I saw Satan like lightning fall from Heaven or when he heard the voice of his Father testifying concerning him or lest he should be deceived when he touched Peters wives mother by the hand or that he smelt another breath of ointment and not what was offered to his burial Alium postea vini saporem quod in sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit or tasted another taste of wine which he consecrated to the memory of his blood And if the Catholick Christians had believed the substantial natural presence of Christs body in the Sacrament and consequently disbelieved the testimony of four senses as the Church of Rome at this day does seeing smelling tasting feeling it had been impudence in them to have reproved Marcion by the testimony of two senses concerning the verity of Christs body And supposing that our eyes could be deceived and our taste and our smelling yet our touch cannot for supposing the organs equally disposed yet touch is the guardian of truth and his nearest natural instrument all sensation is by touch but the other senses are more capable of being deceived because though they finally operate by touch variously affected yet their objects are further removed from the Organ and therefore many intermedial things may intervene and possibly hinder the operation of the sense that is bring more diseases and disturbances to the action but in touch the object and the instrument joyn close together and therefore there can be no impediment if the instrument be sound and the object proper And yet no sense can be deceived in that which it always perceives alike The touch can never be deceived and therefore a testimony from it and three senses more cannot possibly be refused and therefore it were strange if all the Christians for above 1600 years together should be deceived as if the Eucharist were a perpetual illusion and a riddle to the senses for so many ages together and indeed the fault in this case could not be in the senses and therefore Tertullian and S. Austin dispute wittily and substantially that the senses could never be deceived but the understanding ought to assent to what they relate to it or represent For if any man thinks the staff is crooked that is set half way in the water it is the fault of his judgment not of his sense for the air and the water being several mediums the eye ought to see otherwise in air otherwise in water but the understanding must not conclude falsly from these true premises which the eye ministers For the thicker medium makes a fraction of the species by incrassation and a shadow and when a man in the yellow Jaundies thinks every thing yellow it is not the fault of his eye but of his understanding for the eye does his office right for it perceives just as is represented to it the species are brought yellow but the fault is in the understanding not perceiving that the species are stained near the eye not further off When a man in a fever thinks every thing bitter his taste is not deceived but judges rightly for as a man that chews bread and aloes together tastes not false if he tastes bitterness so it is in the sick mans case the juice of his meat is mingled with choler and the taste is acute and exact by perceiving it such as it is so mingled The purpose of which discourse is this that no notices are more evident and more certain than the notices of sense but if we conclude contrary to the true dictate of senses the fault is in the understanding collecting false conclusions from right premises It follows therefore that in the matter of the Eucharist we ought to judge that which our senses tell us For whatsoever they say is true for no deceit can come by them but the deceit is when we believe something besides or against what they tell us especially when the organ is perfect and the object proper and the medium regular and all things perfect and the same always and to all men For it is observable that in this case the senses are competent judges of the natural being of what they see and taste and smell and feel and according to that all the men in the world can swear that what they see is bread and wine but it is not their office to tell us what they become by the institution of our Saviour for that we are to learn by faith that what is bread and wine in nature is by Gods ordinance the Sacrament of the body and blood of the Saviour of the world but one cannot contradict another and therefore they must be reconciled both say true that which Faith teaches is certain and that which the senses of all men teach always that also is certain and evident for as the rule of the School says excellently Grace never destroys nature but perfects it and so it is in the consecration of bread and wine in which although we are more to regard their signification than their matter their holy imployment than their natural usage what they are by grace rather than what they are by nature that they are Sacramental rather than that they are nutritive that they are consecrated and exalted by religion rather than that they are mean and low in their natural beings what they are to the spirit and understanding rather than what they are to the sense yet this also is as true and as evident as the other and therefore though not so apt for our meditation yet as certain as that which is 7. Thirdly Though it be a hard thing to be put to prove that bread is bread and that wine is wine yet if the arguments and notices of sense may not pass for sufficient an impudent person may without possibility of being confuted out-face any man that an Oyster is a Rat and that a Candle is a pig of Lead and so might the Egyptian Soothsayers have been too hard for Moses for when they changed rods into Serpents they had some colour to tell Pharaoh they were Serpents as well as the rod of Moses But if they had failed to turn the water into blood they needed not to have been troubled if they could have born down Pharaoh that though it looked like water and tasted like water yet by their inchantment they had made it verily to be blood And upon this ground of having different substances unproper and disproportioned accidents what hinders them but they might have said so and if they had how should they have been confuted But this manner of proceeding would be sufficient to evacuate all reason and all science and all notices of things and we may as well conclude snow to be black and fire cold and two and two to make five and twenty 8. But it is said although the body of Christ be invested with unproper accidents yet sometimes Christ hath appeared in his own shape and blood
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
the faults and failings of humanity It is a famous saying of St. Gregory That he had the four first Councils in esteem and veneration next to the four Evangelists I suppose it was because he did believe them to have proceeded according to rule and to have judged righteous judgment but why had not he the same opinion of other Councils too which were celebrated before his death for he lived after the fifth General not because they had not the same Authority for that which is warrant for one is warrant for all but because he was not so confident that they did their duty nor proceeded so without interest as the first four had done and the following Councils did never get that reputation which all the Catholick Church acknowledged due to the first four And in the next Order were the three following Generals for the Greeks and Latines did never jointly acknowledge but seven Generals to have been authentick in any sence because they were in no sence agreed that any more than seven had proceeded regularly and done their duty So that now the Question is not whether General Councils have a promise that the holy Ghost will assist them For every private man hath that promise that if he does his duty he shall be assisted sufficiently in order to that end to which he needs assistance and therefore much more shall General Councils in order to that end for which they convene and to which they need assistance that is in order to the conservation of the Faith for the doctrinal rules of good life and all that concerns the essential duty of a Christian but not in deciding Questions to satisfie contentions or curious or presumptuous spirits But now can the Bishops so convened be factious can they be abused with prejudice or transported with interests can they resist the holy Ghost can they extinguish the Spirit can they stop their ears and serve themselves upon the holy Spirit and the pretence of his assistances and cease to serve him upon themselves by captivating their understandings to his dictates and their wills to his precepts Is it necessary they should perform any condition is there any one duty for them to perform in these Assemblies a duty which they have power to do or not to do If so then they may fail of it and not do their duty And if the assistance of the holy Spirit be conditional then we have no more assurance that they are assisted than that they do their duty and do not sin 2. Now let us suppose what this duty is Certainly if the Gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost and all that come to the knowledge of the truth must come to it by such means which are spiritual and holy dispositions in order to a holy and spiritual end They must be shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace that is they must have peaceable and docible dispositions nothing with them that is violent and resolute to encounter those gentle and sweet assistances and the Rule they are to follow is the Rule which the holy Spirit hath consigned to the Catholick Church that is the holy Scripture either intirely or at least for the greater part of the Rule So that now if the Bishops be factious and prepossessed with perswasions depending upon interest it is certain they may judge amiss and if they recede from the Rule it is certain they do judge amiss And this I say upon their grounds who most advance the Authority of General Councils For if a General Council may err if a Pope confirm it not then most certainly if in any thing it recede from Scripture it does also err because that they are to expect the Popes confirmation they offer to prove from Scripture now if the Popes confirmation be required by authority of Scripture and that therefore the defailance of it does evacuate the Authority of the Council then also are the Councils Decrees invalid if they recede from any other part of Scripture So that Scripture is the Rule they are to follow and a man would have thought it had been needless to have proved it but that we are fallen into Ages in which no truth is certain no reason concluding nor is there any thing that can convince some men For Stapleton with extream boldness against the piety of Christendom against the publick sence of the ancient Church and the practice of all pious Assemblies of Bishops affirms the Decrees of a Council to be binding etiamsi non confirmetur ne probabilì testimonio Scripturarum nay though it be quite extra Scripturam but all wise and good men have ever said that sence which Saint Hilary expressed in these words Quae extra Evangelium sunt non defendam This was it which the good Emperour Constantine propounded to the Fathers met at Nice Libri Evangelici oracula Apostolorum veterum Prophetarum clarè nos instruunt quid sentiendum in Divinis And this is confessed by a sober man of the Roman Church it self the Cardinal of Cusa Oportet quòd omnia talia quae legere debent contineantur in Authoritatibus sacrarum Scripturarum Now then all the advantage I shall take from hence is this That if the Apostles commended them who examined their Sermons by their conformity to the Law and the Prophets and the men of Berea were accounted noble for searching the Scriptures whether those things which they taught were so or no I suppose it will not be denied but the Councils Decrees may also be tryed whether they be conform to Scripture yea or no and although no man can take cognisance and judge the Decrees of a Council pro Authoritate publicâ yet pro informatione privatâ they may the Authority of a Council is not greater than the Authority of the Apostles nor their dictates more sacred or authentick Now then put case a Council should recede from Scripture whether or no were we bound to believe its Decrees I only ask the Question For it were hard to be bound to believe what to our understanding seems contrary to that which we know to be the Word of God But if we may lawfully recede from the Councils Decrees in case they be contrariant to Scripture it is all that I require in this Question For if they be tyed to a Rule then they are to be examined and understood according to the Rule and then we are to give our selves that liberty of judgment which is requisite to distinguish us from beasts and to put us into a capacity of reasonable people following reasonable guides But however if it be certain that the Councils are to follow Scripture then if it be notorious that they do recede from Scripture we are sure we must obey God rather than men and then we are well enough For unless we are bound to shut our eyes and not to look upon the Sun if we may give our selves liberty to believe what seems most
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
them that is the worst that is to be done to such a man in Saint Paul's judgement Yet count him not as an enemy but admonish him as a brother SECT XXI Of the Duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion 1. FRom these Premisses we are easily instructed concerning the lawfulness or duty respectively of Christian Communion which is differently to be considered in respect of particular Churches to each other and of particular men to particular Churches For as for particular Churches they are bound to allow Communion to all those that profess the same Faith upon which the Apostles did give Communion For whatsoever preserves us as members of the Church gives us title to the Communion of Saints and whatsoever Faith or belief that is to which God hath promised Heaven that Faith makes us members of the Catholick Church Since therefore the judicial Acts of the Church are then most prudent and religious when they nearest imitate the example and piety of God to make the Way to Heaven streighter then God made it or to deny to communicate with those with whom God will vouchsafe to be united and to refuse our charity to those who have the same Faith because they have not all our Opinions and believe not every thing necessary which we overvalue is impious and schismaticall it infers tyranny on one part and perswades and tempts to uncharitableness and animosities on both it dissolves Societies and is an enemy to peace it busies men in impertinent wranglings and by names of men and titles of factions it consigns the interessed parties to act their differences to the height and makes them neglect those advantages which piety and a good life bring to the reputation of Christian Religion and societies 2. And therefore Vincentius Lirinensis and indeed the whole Church accounted the Donatists Hereticks upon this very ground because they did imperiously deny their Communion to all that were not of their perswasion whereas the Authours of that Opinion for which they first did separate and make a Sect because they did not break the Churche's peace nor magisterially prescribed to others were in that disagreeing and errour accounted Catholicks Divisio enim disunio facit vos haereticos pax unitas faciunt Catholicos said Saint Augustin And to this sense is that of Saint Paul If I had all faith and had not charity I am nothing He who upon confidence of his true belief denies a charitable Communion to his brother loses the reward of both And if Pope Victor had been as charitable to the Asiaticks as Pope Anicetus and Saint Polycarp were to each other in the same disagreeing concerning Easter Victor had not been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so bitterly reproved and condemned as he was for the uncharitable managing of his disagreeing by Polycrates and Irenaeus Concordia enim quae est charitatis effectus est unio voluntatum non opinionum True Faith which leads to Charity leads on to that which unites wills and affections not Opinions 3. Upon these or the like considerations the Emperour Zeno published his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which he made the Nicene Creed to be the medium of Catholick Communion and although he lived after the Council of Chalcedon yet he made not the Decrees of that Council an instrument of its restraint and limit as preferring the peace of Christendom and the union of charity far before a forced or pretended unity of perswasion which never was nor ever will be real and substantial and although it were very convenient if it could be had yet it is therefore not necessary because it is impossible And if men please whatever advantages to the publick would be consequent to it may be supplied by a charitable compliance and mutuall permission of Opinion and the offices of a brotherly affection prescribed us by the Laws of Christianity And we have seen it that all Sects of Christians when they have an end to be served upon a third have permitted that liberty to a second which we now contend for and which they formerly denied but now grant that by joyning hands they might be the stronger to destroy the third The Arians and Meletians joyned against the Catholicks the Catholicks and Novatians joyned against the Arians Now if men would doe that for charity which they doe for interest it were handsomer and more ingenuous For that they do permit each others disagreeings for their interests sake convinceth them of the lawfulness of the thing or else the unlawfulness of their own proceedings And therefore it were better they would serve the ends of charity then of faction for then that good end would hallow the proceeding and make it both more prudent and more pious while it serves the design of religious purposes SECT XXII That particular men may communicate with Churches of different Perswasions and how far they may doe it 1. AS for the duty of particular men in the Question of communicating with Churches of different perswasions it is to be regulated according to the Laws of those Churches For if they require no impiety or any thing unlawfull as the condition of their Communion then they communicate with them as they are servants of Christ as disciples of his Doctrine and subjects to his laws and the particular distinguishing Doctrine of their Sect hath no influence or communication with him who from another Sect is willing to communicate with all the servants of their common Lord. For since no Church of one name is infallible a wise man may have either the misfortune or a reason to believe of every one in particular that she errs in some Article or other either he cannot communicate with any or else he may communicate with all that do not make a sin or the profession of an errour to be the condition of their Communion And therefore as every particular Church is bound to tolerate disagreeing persons in the senses and for the reasons above explicated so every particular person is bound to tolerate her that is not to refuse her Communion when he may have it upon innocent conditions For what is it to me if the Greek Church denies Procession of the third Person from the second so she will give me the right hand of fellowship though I affirm it therefore because I profess the Religion of Jesus Christ and retain all matters of Faith and necessity But this thing will scarce be reduced to practice for few Churches that have framed bodies of Confession and Articles will endure any person that is not of the same Confession which is a plain demonstration that such bodies of Confession Articles doe much hurt by becoming instruments of separating and dividing Communions and making unnecessary or uncertain propositions a certain means of Schism and disunion But then men would doe well to consider whether or no such proceedings do not derive the guilt of Schism upon them who least think it and whether of the two is the
manner of speaking to Hoc not to corpus meum which are the words immediately preceding and so most proper for the relation and that the sence is This figure of my body is my body that is this which was a figure in the Old Testament is now a substance To this I reply 1. It must mean this which is present is my body not this figure of my body which was in the Old Testament but this which we mean in the words of consecration and then it is no hyperbaton which is to be supplied with quod erat This which was for the nature of a hyperbaton is to make all right by a meer transposition of the words as Christus mortuus est i. e. unctus place unctus before mortuus and the sentence is perfect but it is not so here without the addition of two words it cannot be and if two words may be added we may make what sence we please But 2. suppose that figura corporis does refer to Hoc yet it is to be remembred that Hoc in that place is one of the words of the institution or consecration and then it can have no sence to evacuate the pressure of his words 3. Suppose this reference of the words to be intended then the sence will be This figure of my body is my body the consequent of which is that which we contend for that the same which is called his body is the figure of his body the one is the subject the other the predicate and then it affirms all that is pleaded for as if we say Haec effigies est homo we mean it is the effigies of a man and so in this This figure of my body is my body by the rule of denominatives signifies This is the figure of my body 4. In the preceding words Tertullian says the Pascha was the type of his passion this Pascha he desired to eat This Pascha was not the lamb for he was betrayed the night before it was to be eaten professus se concupisâ—entiâ concupisse edere Pascha ut suum indignum enim ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus he would eat the Passeover of his own figuram sanguinis sui salutaris implere concupiscebat he desir'd to fulfil the figure that is to produce the last of all the figures of his healing blood Now this was by eating the Paschal Lamb that is himself for the other was not to be eaten that night Now then if the eating or delivering himself to be eaten that night was implere figuram sanguinis sui he then did fulfil the figure of his blood therefore figura corporis mei in the following words must relate to what he did that night that therefore was the figure but the more excellent because the nearest to the substance which was given really the next day this therefore as S. Gregory Nazianzen affirms was the most excellent figure the Paschal lamb it self being figura figurae the figure of a figure as I have quoted him in the sequel And it is not disagreeing from the expression of Scripture saying that the law had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a shadow but not the very image that was in the ceremonies of the law this in the Sacraments of the Gospel Christ himself was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing it self but the image was more than the shadow though less than the substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the word by which the Fathers expressed this nearer configuration 5. Whereas it is added it had not been a figure nisi veritatis esset corpus to my sence clears the question for therefore Christs body which he was cloathed withall was a true body else this could not be a figure of it But therefore this which was also a figure could not be the true body of which it was a figure 6. That which Fisher adds that Tertullians drift was to shew that whereas in the old Testament bread was the figure of the body of Christ as appears by the words of the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem ejus i. e. crucem in corpus ejus Christ in the new Testament made this figure really to be his body This I conceive to make very much against Tertullians design For he proves that therefore Christ might well call bread his body that was no new thing for it was so also in the old figure and therefore may be so now But that this was no more than a figure he adds If therefore he made bread to be his body because he wanted a true body then bread was delivered for us and it would advance the vanity of Marcion that bread was crucified No this could not be but therefore he must mean that as of old in the Prophet and in the Passeover so now in the last supper he gave the same figure and therefore that which was figured was real viz. his crucified body Now suppose we should frame this argument out of Tertullians medium and suppose it to be made by Marcion The body of Christ was delivered for the sins of the world c. you Catholicks say that bread is the body of Christ therefore you say that bread was delivered for the sins of the whole world and that bread was crucified for you and that bread is the son of God what answer could be made to this out of Tertullian but by expounding the minor proposition figuratively We Catholicks say that the Eucharistical bread is the body of Christ in a figurative sence it is completio or consummatio figurarum the last and most excellent of all figures But if he should have said according to the Roman fancy that it is the natural body of Christ it would have made rare triumphs in the Schools of Marcion But that there may be no doubt in this particular hear himself summing up his own discourses in this question Proinde panis calicis Sacramento jam in Evangelio probavimus corporis sanguinis Dominici veritatem adversùs phantasma Marcionis Against the phantasm of Marcion we have proved the verity of Christs body and blood by the Sacrament of bread and wine 7. This very answer I find to be Tertullians own explication of this affair for speaking of the same figurative speech of the Prophet Jeremy and why bread should be called his body he gives this account Hoc lignum Jeremias tibi insinuat dicturis praedicans Judaeis Venite mittamus lignum in panem ejus utique in corpus sic enim Deus in Evangelio quoque vestro revelavit panem corpus suum appellans ut hinc jam eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse cujus retro corpus in panem prophetis figuravit ipso domino hoc Sacramentum postea interpretaturo For so God revealed in your Gospel calling bread his body that hence thou mayest understand that he gave to bread the figure of his body whose body anciently the Prophet figured by bread afterwards the Lord himself
but that they contain in them the mystery of his body and blood Isidore Bishop of Sevil says Panis quem frangimus c. The bread which we break is the body of Christ who saith I am the living bread But the wine is his blood and that is it which is written I am the true vine But bread because it strengthens our body therefore it is called the body of Christ but wine because it makes blood in our flesh therefore it is reduced or referred to the blood of Christ. But these visible things sanctified by the holy Ghost pass into the Sacrament of the Divine body Suidas in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ calls the Church his body and by her as a man he ministers but as he is God he receives what is offered But the Church offers the symbols of his body and blood sanctifying the whole mass by the first fruits Symbola i. e. Signa says the Latin version The bread and wine are the signs of his body and his bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Suidas Hesychius speaking of this mystery affirms Quòd simul panis caro est It is both bread and flesh too Fulgentius saith Hic calix est novum Testamentum i. e. Hic calix quem vobis trado novum Testamentum significat This cup is the new Testament that is it signifies it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Procopius of Gaza He gave to his disciples the image of his own body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said the scholiast upon Dionysius the Areopagite These things are symbols and not the truth or verity and he said it upon occasion of the same doctrine which his Author whom he explicates taught in that Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Divine symbols being placed upon the Altar by which Christ is signified and participated But this only I shall remark that Transubstantiation is so far from having been the Primitive doctrine that it was among Catholicks fiercely disputed in the time of Charles the Bald about the year 880. Paschasius wrote for the Substantial conversion Rabanus maintain'd the contrary in his answer to Heribaldus and in his writing to Abbot Egilo There lived in the same time in the Court of Charles the Emperor a country-man of ours Jo. Scot called by some Jo. Erigena who wrote a book against the substantial change in the Sacrament He lived also sometimes in England with King Alfred and was surnamed the wise and was a Martyr saith Possevinus and was in the Roman Calender his day was the fourth of the Ides of November as is to be seen in the Martyrologie published at Antwerp 1586. But when the controversie grew publick and noted Charles the Bald commanded Bertram or Ratran to write upon the question being of the Monastery of Corbey he did so and defended our doctrine against Paschasius the book is extant and may be read by him that desires it but it is so intire and dogmatical against the substantial change which was the new doctrine of Paschasius that Turrian gives this account of it to cite Bertram what is it else but to say that Calvins heresie is not new and the Belgick expurgatory Index professeth to use it with the same equity which it useth to other Catholick writers in whom they tolerate many errors and extenuate or excuse them and sometimes by inventing some device they do deny it and put some fit sence to them when they are opposed in disputation and this they do lest the Hereticks should talk that they forbid and burn books that make against them You see the honesty of the men and the justness of their proceedings but the Spanish expurgatory Index forbids the book wholly with a penitus auferatur I shall only add this that in the Church of England Bertrams doctrine prevailed longer and till Lanfrancks time it was permitted to follow Bertram or Paschasius And when Osbern wrote the lives of Odo Arch-bishop of Canterbury Dunstan and Elphege by the command of Lanfranck he says that in Odo's time some Clergy-men affirmed in the Sacrament bread and wine to remain in substance and to be Christs body only in figure and tells how the Arch-bishop prayed and blood dropped out of the Host over the Chalice and so his Clerks which then assisted at Mass and were of another opinion were convinced This though he writes to please Lanfranck who first gave authority to this opinion in England and according to the opinion which then prevailed yet it is an irrefragable testimony that it was but a disputed Article in Odo's time no Catholick doctrine no Article of Faith nor of a good while after for however these Clerks were fabulously reported to be changed at Odo's miracle who could not convince them by the Law and the Prophets by the Gospels and Epistles yet his successor he that was the fourth after him I mean Aelfrick Abbot of S. Albans and afterwards Arch-bishop of Canterbury in his Saxon Homily written above 600 years since disputes the question and determines in the words of Bertram only for a Spiritual presence not natural or substantial The book was printed at London by John Day and with it a letter of Aelfrick to Wulfin Bishop of Schirburn to the same purpose His words are these That housel that is the blessed Sacrament is Christs body not bodily but spiritually not the body which he suffered in but the body of which he spake when he blessed bread and wine to Housel the night before his suffering and said by the blessed bread This is my body And in a writing to the Arch-bishop of York he said The Lord halloweth daily by the hand of the Priest bread to his body and wine to his blood in spiritual mystery as we read in books And yet notwithstanding that lively bread is not bodily so nor the self same body that Christ suffered in I end this with the words of the Gloss upon the Canon Law Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè unde dicitur suo modo scil non rei veritate sed significati mysterio ut sit sensus vocatur Christi corpus i. e. significatur The heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly therefore it is said meaning in the Canon taken out of S. Austin after the manner to wit not in the truth of the thing but in the mystery of that which is signified so that the meaning is it is called Christ body that is Christs body is signified which the Church of Rome well expresses in an ancient Hymn Sub duabus speciebus Signis tantùm non rebus Latent res eximiae Excellent things lie under the two species of bread and wine which are only signs not the things whereof they are signs But the Lateran Council struck all dead before which Transubstantiatio non
esteem our selves oblig'd to warn the People of their danger and to depart from it and call upon them to stand upon the wayes and ask after the old paths and walk in them lest they partake of that curse which is threatned by God to them who remove the ancient Land-marks which our Fathers in Christ have set for us Now that the Church of Rome cannot pretend that all which she imposes is Primitive and Apostolick appears in this That in the Church of Rome there is pretence made to a power not only of declaring new Articles of faith but of making new Symbols or Creeds and imposing them as of necessity to Salvation Which thing is evident in the Bull of Pope Leo the tenth against Martyn Luther in which amongst other things he is condemn'd for saying It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or Pope to constitute Articles of Faith We need not add that this power is attributed to the Bishops of Rome by Turrecremata Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona Petrus de Ancorano and the Famous Abbot of Panormo that the Pope cannot only make new Creeds but new Articles of Faith that he can make that of necessity to be believ'd which before never was necessary that he is the measure and rule and the very notice of all credibilities That the Canon Law is the Divine Law and whatever Law the Pope promulges God whose Vicar he is is understood to be the Promulger That the souls of Men are in the hands of the Pope and that in his arbitration Religion doth consist which are the very words of Hostiensis and Ferdinandus ab Inciso who were Casuists and Doctors of Law of great authority amongst them and renown The thing it self is not of dubioâ—â— disputation amongst them but actually practis'd in the greatest Instances as is to be seen in the Bull of Pius the fourth at the end of the Council of Trent by which all Ecclesiasticks are not only bound to swear to all the Articles of the Council of Trent for the present and for the future but they are put into a new Symbol or Creed and they are corroborated by the same decretory clauses that are us'd in the Creed of Athanasius That this is the true Catholick Faith and that without this no Man can be saved Now since it cannot be imagined that this power to which they pretend should never have been reduc'd to act and that it is not credible they should publish so invidious and ill-sounding Doctrine to no purpose and to serve no end it may without further evidence be believed by all discerning persons that they have need of this Doctrine or it would not have been taught and that consequently without more ado it may be concluded that some of their Articles are parts of this new faith and that they can therefore in no sence be Apostolical unless their being Roman makes them so To this may be added another consideration not much less material that besides what Eckius told the Elector of Bavaria that the Doctrines of Luther might be overthrown by the Fathers though not by Scripture they have also many gripes of Conscience concerning the Fathers themselves that they are not right on their side and of this they have given but too much demonstration by their Expurgatory indices The Serpent by being so curious a defender of his head shews where his danger is and by what he can most readily be destroyed But besides their innumerable corruptings of the Fathers Writings their thrusting in that which was spurious and like Pharaoh killing the legitimate Sons of Israel though in this they have done very much of their work and made the Testimonies of the Fathers to be a record infinitely worse than of themselves uncorrupted they would have been of which divers Learned Persons have made publick complaint and demonstration they have at last fallen to a new trade which hath caus'd more disreputation to them than they have gain'd advantage and they have virtually confess'd that in many things the Fathers are against them For first the King of Spain gave a Commission to the Inquisitors to purge all Catholick Authors but with this clause Iique ipsi privatim nullisque consciis apud se indicem expurgatorium habebunt quem eundum neque aliis communicabunt neque ejus exemplum ulli dabunt that they should keep the expurgatory Index privately neither imparting that Index nor giving a copy of it to any But it happened by the Divine Providence so ordering it that about thirteen years after a copy of it was gotten and published by Johannes Pappus and Franciscus Junius and since it came abroad against their wills they find it necessary now to own it and they have printed it themselves Now by these expurgatory Tables what they have done is known to all Learned Men. In Saint Chrysostom's Works printed at Basil these words The Church is not built upon the Man but upon the Faith are commanded to be blotted out and these There is no merit but what is given us by Christ and yet these words are in his Sermon upon Pentecost and the former words are in his first Homily upon that of Saint John Ye are my friends c. The like they have done to him in many other places and to Saint Ambrose and to Saint Austin and to them all insomuch that Ludovicus Saurius the Corrector of the Press at Lyons shewed and complain'd of it to Junius that he was forc'd to cancellate or blot out many sayings of Saint Ambrose in that Edition of his Works which was printed at Lyons 1559. So that what they say on occasion of Bertram's Book In the old Catholick Writers we suffer very many errors and extenuate and excuse them and finding out some Commentary we feign some convenient sence when they are oppos'd in disputations they do indeed practise but esteem it not sufficient for the words which make against them they wholly leave out of their Editions Nay they correct the very Tables or Indices made by the Printers or Correctors insomuch that out of one of Froben's Indices they have commanded these words to be blotted The use of Images forbidden The Eucharist no Sacrifice but the memory of a Sacrifice Works although they do not justifie yet are necessary to Salvation Marriage is granted to all that will nor contain Venial sins damn The dead Saints after this life cannot help us nay out of the Index of Saint Austin's Works by Claudius Chevallonius at Paris 1531. there is a very strange deleatur Dele Solus Deus adorandus that God alone is to be worshipped is commanded to be blotted out as being a dangerous Doctrine These Instances may serve instead of multitudes which might be brought of their corrupting the Witnesses and razing the Records of Antiquity that the errors and Novelties of the Church of Rome might not be so easily reprov'd Now if
first part of Conversion or Repentance is a quitting of all sinful habits and abstaining from all criminal actions whatsoever Virtus est vitium fugere sapientia prima Stultitiâ caruisse For unless the Spirit of God rule in our hearts we are none of Christs but he rules not where the works of the flesh are frequently or maliciously or voluntarily entertained All the works of the flesh and whatsoever leads to them all that is contrary to the Spirit and does either grieve or extinguish him must be rescinded and utterly taken away Concerning which it is necessary that I set down the Catalogues which by Christ and his Apostles are left us as lights and watch-towers to point out the rocks and quicksands where our danger is and this I shall the rather do not only because they comprehend many evils which are not observed or feared some which are commended and many that are excused but also because although they are all mark'd with the same black character of death yet there is some difference in the execution of the sentence and in the degrees of their condemnation and of the consequent Repentance Evil thoughts or discoursings 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Evil reasonings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Hesychius that is prating importune pratling and looseness of tongue such as is usual with bold boys and young men prating much and to no purpose But our Bibles read it Evil thoughts or surmisings for in Scripture it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Suidas observes concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to think long and carefully to dwell in meditation upon a thing to which when our blessed Saviour adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 evil he notes and reproves such kind of morose thinkings and fancying of evil things and it is not unlikely that he means thoughts of uncleanness or lustful fancies For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Hesychius it signifies such words as are prologues to wantonness so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aristophanes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that here are forbidden all wanton words and all morose delighting in venereous thoughts all rollings and tossing such things in our mind For even these defile the soul. Verborum obscoenitas si turpitudini rerum adhibeatur ludus ne libero quidem homine dignus est said Cicero Obscene words are a mockery not worthy of an ingenuous person This is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that foolish talking and jesting which S. Paul joyns to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that filthiness of communication which men make a jest of but is indeed the basest in the world the sign of a vile dishonest mind and it particularly noted the talk of Mimicks and Parasites Buffoons and Players whose trade was to make sport 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they did use to do it with nastiness and filthy talkings as is to be seen in Aristophanes and is rarely described and severely reproved in S. Chrysostom in his sixth Homily upon S. Matthew For per verba dediscitur rerum pudor which S. Paul also affirms in the words of Menander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Evil words corrupt good manners and evil thoughts being the fountain of evil words lie under the same prohibition Under this head is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a talkative rash person ready to speak slow to hear against S. James his rule Inventers of Evil things 3. Contrivers of all such artifices as minister to vice Curious inventions for cruelty for gluttony for lust witty methods of drinking wanton pictures and the like which for the likeness of the matter I have subjoyn'd next to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the evil thinkings or surmises reproved by our blessed Saviour as these are expresly by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 COVETOVSNESS or 4. Inordinate unreasonable desires For the word does not only signifie the designing and contrivances of unjust ways of purchasing which is not often separated from covetous desires but the very studium habendi the thirst or greediness secret and impatient desires of having abundance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hurt of immoderate lusting or desire and is sometimes applied to the matter of uncleanness but in this Catalogue I wholly separate it from this because this is comprised under other words Neither will it be hard to discern and to reprove this sin of desires in them that are guilty of it though they will not think or confess what is and what is not abundance For there is not easily to be found a greater testimony of covetousness than the error concerning the measure of our possessions He that is not easie to call that abundance which by good and severe men is thought so desires more than he should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when any thing is over and above the needs of our life that is too much and to desire that is covetousness saith S. Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take heed and keep your selves from covetousness for our life consisteth not in abundance intimating that to desire more than our life needs is to desire abundance and that is covetousness and that is the root of all evil that is all sins and all mischiefs can come from hence Divitis hoc vitium est auri nec bella fuere Faginus adstabat cum scyphus ante dapes There were no wars in those days when men did drink in a treen cup. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 WICKEDNESS 5. This is the same that the Latines call Malitia a scurvy base disposition aptness to do shrewd turns to delight in mischiefs and tragedies a loving to trouble our neighbour and to do him ill offices crosseness perverseness and peevishness of action in our entercourse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas Facessere negotium alicui to do a man an evil office or to put him to trouble And to this is reducible that which S. Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Malignity a baseness of nature by which we take things by the wrong handle and expounding things always in the worst sence Vitiositas is the Latin word for it and it seems to be worse than the former by being a more general principle of mischief Malitia certi cujusdam vitii est vitiositas omnium said Cicero This is in a mans nature an universal depravation of his spirit that is in manners and is sooner cured than this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CRAFTINESS 6. That is a wiliness and aptness to deceive a studying by some underhand trick to over-reach our brother like that of Corax his Scholar he cousen'd his Master with a trick of his own art 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A crafty Crow laid a crafty egge By which is not signified that natural or acquired sagacity by which men can contrive wittily or be too hard for their brother if they should
World by Adam's sin was Death Eternal that is God then decreed to punish sinners with the portion of Devils It is likely he did so but that this was the death introduced for the sin of Adam upon all Man-kind is not at all affirmed in Scripture but temporal death is the effect of Adam's sin in Adam we all die and the Death that Adam's sin brought in is such as could have a remedy or recompence by Christ but Eternal Death hath no recompence and shall never be destroyed but temporal death shall But that which I say is this that for Adam's sin alone no man but himself is or can justly be condemned to the bitter pains of Eternal Fire This depends also upon the former accounts because meer Nature brings not to Hell but choice Nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas said S. Bernard and since Original sin is not properly ours but only by imputation if God should impute Adam's sin so as to damn any one for it all our good we receive from God is much less than that evil and we should be infinitely to seek for justifications of God's justice and glorifications of his mercy or testimonies of his goodness But now the matter is on this side so reasonable in it self that let a man take what side he will he shall have parties enough and no prejudices or load of a consenting authority can be against him but that there shall be on the side of reason as great and leading persons as there are of those who have been abused by errour and prejudice In the time of S. Augustine Vincentius Victor and some others did believe that Infants dying without Baptism should never the less be saved although he believed them guilty of Original sin Bucer Peter Martyr and Calvin affirmed the same of the children of faithful Parents but Zuinglius affirmed it of all and that no Infant did lose Heaven for his Original stain and corruption Something less than this was the Doctrine of the Pelagians who exclude Infants unbaptized from the Kingdom of Heaven but promised to them an eternal and a natural beatitude and for it S. Augustine reckons them for Hereticks as indeed being impatient of every thing almost which they said But yet the opinion was imbraced lately by Ambrosius Catherinus Albertus Pighius and Hieronymus Savanarola And though S. Augustine sometimes calls as good Men as himself by the Name of Pelagians calling all them so that assign a third place or state to Infants yet besides these now reckoned S. Gregory Nazianzen and his Scholiast Nicetes did believe and reach it and the same is affirmed also by S. Athanasius or whoever is the Author of the Questions to Antiochus usually attributed to him and also by S. Ambrose or the Author of the Commentaries on S. Paul's Epistles who lived in the time of Pope Damasus that is before 400. Years after Christ and even by S. Augustine himself expresly in his third Book de libero arbitrio cap. 23. But when he was heated with his disputations against the Pelagians he denied all and said that a middle place or state was never heard of in the Church For all this the opinion of a middle state for unbaptized Infants continued in the Church and was expresly affirmed by Pope Innocent the third who although he says Infants shall not see the face of God yet he expresly denies that they shall be tormented in Hell and he is generally followed by the Schoolmen who almost universally teach that Infants shall be deprived of the Vision Beatifical but shall not suffer Hell torments but yet they stoop so much towards S. Augustin's harsh and fierce Opinion that they say this deprivation is a part of Hell not of torment but of banishment from God and of abode in the place of torment Among these they are also divided some affirming that they have some pain of sense but little and light others saying they have none even as they pleased to fancy for they speak wholly without ground and meerly by chance and interest and against the consent of Antiquity as I have already instanced But Gregorius Ariminensis Driedo Luther Melancthon and Tilmanus Heshusius are fallen into the worst of S. Augustine's opinion and sentence poor Infants to the flames of Hell for Original sin if they die before Baptism To this I shall not say much more than what I have said otherwhere But that no Catholick Writer for 400. Years after Christ did ever affirm it but divers affirmed the contrary And indeed if the Unavoidable want of Baptism should damn Infants for the fault which was also unavoidable I do not understand how it can in any sence be true that Christ died for all if at least the Children of Christian Parents shall not find the benefit of Christ's Death because that without the fault of any man they want the ceremony Upon this account some good men observing the great sadness and the injustice of such an accident are willing upon any terms to admit Infants to Heaven even without Baptism if any one of their Relatives desire it for them or if the Church desires it which in effect admits all Christian infants to Heaven Of this opinion were Gerson Biel Cajetan and some others All which to my sence seems to declare that if men would give themselves freedom of judgment and speak what they think most reasonable they would speak honour of God's mercy and not impose such fierce and unintelligibe things concerning his justice and goodness since our blessed Saviour concerning infants and those only who are like infants affirms that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven But now in the midst of this great variety of Opinions it will be hard to pick out any thing that is certain For my part I believe this only as certain That Nature alone cannot bring them to Heaven and that Adam left us in a state in which we could not hope for it but this I know also that as soon as this was done Christ was promised and that before there was any birth of Man or Woman and that God's Grace is greater and more communicative than sin and Christ was more Gracious and effective than Adam was hurtful and that therefore it seems very agreeable to God's goodness to bring them to happiness by Christ who were brought to misery by Adam and that he will do this by himself alone in ways of his own finding out And yet if God will not give them Heaven by Christ he will not throw them into Hell by Adam if his goodness will not do the first his Goodness and his Justice will not suffer him to do the second and therefore I consent to Antiquity and the Schoolmens opinion thus far that the destitution or loss of God's sight is the effect of Original sin that is by Adam's sin we were left so as that we cannot by it go to Heaven But here I differ Whereas they
eo usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiù recenseatur Peccatrix a. quia immunda recipiens ignominiam suam ex carnis societate And this which he here calls a reproach he otherwhere calls an imperfection or a shame saying by Sathan man at first was circumvented and therefore given up unto Death and from thence all the kind was from his seed infected he made a traduction of his sentence or damnation to wit unto death which was his condemnation and therefore speaking of the woman he says the sentence remaining upon her in this life it is necessary that the guilt also should remain which words are rough and hard to be understood because after Baptism the guilt does not remain but by the following words we may guess that he means that women still are that which Eve was even snares to men gates for the Devil to enter and that they as Eve did dare and can prevail with men when the Devil by any other means cannot I know nothing else that he says of this Article save only that according to the constant sence of antiquity he affirms that the natural faculties of the Soul were not impaired Omnia naturalia animae ut substantiva ejus ipsi inesse cum ipsâ procedere atque proficere And again Hominis anima velut surculus quidam ex Matrice Adam in propaginem deducta genitalibus foeminae foveis commendata cum omni sua paratura pullulabiâ— tam in intellectu quam in sensu The soul like a sprig from Adam derived into his off-spring and put into the bed of its production shall with all its appendages spring or increase both in sence and understanding And that there is liberty of choice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which supposes liberty he proved against Marcion and Hermogenes as himself affirms in the 21 Chap. of the same Book S. Cyprian proving the effect of Baptism upon all and consequently the usefulness to Infants argues thus If pardon of sins is given to the greatest sinners and them that before sinned much against God and afterwards believed and none is forbidden to come to baptism and grace how much more must not an infant be forbidden qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contraxit qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso facilius accedit quod illi remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata Who being new born hath not sinned at all but only being born carnally of Adam he hath in his first birth contracted the contagion of the old death which comes to the remission of sin the more easily because not his own sins but the sins of another are forgiven him In which it is plainly affirmed that the Infant is innocent that he hath not sinned himself that there is in him no sin inherent that Adam's sin therefore only is imputed that all the effect of it upon him is the contagion of death that is mortality and its affections and according as the sins are so is the remission they are the infants improperly and metonymically therefore so is the remission But Arnobius speaks yet more plainly Omne peccatum corde concipitur â—re consummatur Hic autem qui nascitur sententiam Adae habet Peccatum verò suum non habet He that is born of Adam hath the sentence of Adam upon him but not the sin that is he hath no sin inherent but the punishment inflicted by occasion of it The author of the short commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul attributed to S. Ambrose speaks so much that some have used the authority of this writer to prove that there is no Original sin as Sixtus Senensis relates His words are these Mors autem dissolutio corporis est cum anima à corpore separatur est alia mors que secunda dicitur in gehenna quam non peccato Adae patimur sed ejus occasione propriâ—â— peccatis acquiritur Death is the dissolution of the Body when the Soul is separated from it There is also another death in Hell which is called the second death which we suffer not from Adam's sin but by occasion of it it is acquired by our own sins These words need no explication for when he had in the precedent words affirmed that we all sinned in the Mass of Adam this following discourse states the Question right and declares that though Adam's sin be imputed to us to certain purposes yet no man can be damned to the second Death for it it is a testimony so plain for the main part of my affirmation in this Article that as there is not any thing against it within the first 400 years so he could not be accounted a Catholick author if the contrary had been the sence or the prevailing Opinion of the Church 22. To these I shall add the clearest testimonies of S. Chrysostome It seems to have in it no small Question that it is said that by the disobedience of one many become sinners For sinning and being made mortal it is not unlikely that they which spring from him should be so too But that another should be made a sinner by his disobedience what agreement or consequent I beseech you can it have what therefore doth this word Sinner in this place signifie It seems to me to signifie the same that lyable to punishment guilty of Death does signifie because Adam dying all are made mortal by him And again Thou sayest what shall I do by him that is by Adam I perish No not for him For hast thou remained without sin For though thou hast not committed the same sin yet another thou hast And in the 29 Homily upon the same Epistle he argues thus What therefore tell me are all dead in Adam by the death of sin How then was Noah a just man in his generation How was Abraham and Job If this be to be understood of the body the sentence will be certain but if it be understood of justice and sin it will not But to sum up all he answers the great Argument used by S. Austin to prove infants to be in a state of damnation and sin properly because the Church baptizes them and Baptism is for the remission of sins Thou seest how many benefits there are of Baptism But many think that the grace of baptism consists only in the remission of sins But we have reckoned 〈◊〉 honours of baptism For this cause we baptize infants although they are not polluted with sin to wit that to them may be added sanctity justice adoption inheritance and the fraternity of Christ Divers other things might be transcribed to the same purposes out of S. Chrysostome but these are abundantly sufficient to prove that I have said nothing new in this Article Theodoret does very often consent with S.
Rom. 5.12 As by one man sin entred into the world and Death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned i. e. As by the disobedience of Adam sin had its beginning and by sin death that is the sentence and preparations the solennities and addresses of death sickness calamity dâ—â—inution of strengths Old age misfortunes and all the affections of Mortality for the destroying of our temporal life and so this mortality and condition or state of death passed actually upon all mankind for Adam being thrown out of Paradise and forced to live with his Children where they had no Trees of Life as he had in Paradise was remanded to his mortal natural state and therefore death passed upon them mortally seized on all for that all have sinned that is the sin was reckoned to all not to make them guilty like Adam but Adams sin passed upon all imprinting this real calamity on us all But yet death descended also upon Adams Posterity for their own sins for since all did sin all should die But some Greek copies leave out the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which indeed seems superfluous and of no signification but then the sence is cleareâ— and the following words are the second part of a similitude As by one man sin entred into the world and death by sin So death passed upon all men for that all have sinned But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies neutrally And the meaning is As Adam died in his own sin So death passed upon all men for their own sin in the sin which they sinned in that sin they died As it did at first to Adam by whom sin first entred and by sin death so death passed upon all men upon whom sin passed that is in the same method they who did sin should die But then he does not seem to say that all did sin for he presently subjoyns that death reigned even upon those who did not sin after the similitude of Adams transgression but this was upon another account as appears in the following words But others expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie masculinely and to relate to Adam viz. that in him we all sinned Now although this is less consonant to the mind of the Apostle and is harsh and improper both in the language and in the sence yet if it were so it could mean but this that the sin of Adam was of Universal obligation and in him we are reckoned as sinners obnoxious to his sentence for by his sin humane Nature was reduced to its own mortality 13. For until the law sin was in the World but sin is not imputed where there is no law And marvel not that Death did presently descend on all mankind even before a Law was given them with an appendant penalty viz. With the express intermination of death For they did do actions unnatural and vile enough but yet these things which afterwards upon the publication of the Law were imputed to them upon their personal account even unto death were not yet so imputed For Nature alone gives Rules but does not directly bind to penalties But death came upon them before the Law for Adams sin for with him God being angry was pleased to curse him also in his Posterity and leave them also in their mere natural condition to which yet they disposed themselves and had deserved but too much by committing evil things to which things although before the law death was not threatned yet for the anger which God had against mankind he left that death which he threatned to Adam expresly by implication to fall upon the Posterity 14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression who is the figure of him which was to come And therefore it was that death reigned from Adam to Moses from the first law to the second from the time that a Law was given to one man till the time a Law was given to one Nation and although men had not sinned so grievously as Adam did who had no excuse many helps excellent endowments mighty advantages trifling temptations communication with God himself no disorder in his faculties free will perfect immunity from violence Original righteousness perfect power over his faculties yet those men such as Abel and Seth Noah and Abraham Isaac and Jacob Joseph and Benjamin who sinned less and in the midst of all their disadvantages were left to fall under the same sentence But it is to be observed that these words even over them that had not sinned according to some Interpretations are to be put into a Parenthesis and the following words after the similitude of Adams transgression are an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to be referred to the first words thus Death reigned from Adam to Moses after the similitude of Adams transgression that is as it was at first so it was afterwards death reigned upon men who had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression that is like as it did in the transgression of Adam so it did afterward they in their innocence died as Adam did in his sin and prevarication and this was in the similitude of Adam As they who obtain salvation obtain it in the similitude of Christ or by a conformity to Christ so they 〈◊〉 die do die in the likeness of Adam Christ and Adam being the two representatives of mankind For this besides that it was the present Oeconomy of the Divine Providence and Government it did also like Janus look 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it looked forwards as well as backwards and became a type of Christ or of him that was to come For as from Adam evil did descend upon his natural Children upon the account of Gods entercourse with Adam so did good descend upon the spiritual Children of the second Adam 15. But not as the offence so also is the free gift for if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many This should have been the latter part of a similitude but upon further consideration it is found that as in Adam we die so in Christ we live and much rather and much more therefore I cannot say as by one man vers 12. so by one man vers 15. But much more for not as the offence so also is the free gift for the offence of one did run over unto many and those many even as it were all except Enoch or some very few more of whom mention peradventure is not made are already dead upon that account but when God comes by Jesus Christ to shew mercy to mankind he does it in much more abundance he may be angry to the third and fourth generation in them that hate him but he will shew mercy unto thousands of them that love him to a thousand generations and in ten thousand degrees
mystery of the glorious Unity in Trinity we alledge that saying of Saint John there are three which bear witness in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one the Antitrinitarians think they have answered the Argument by saying the Syrian Translation and divers Greek Copies have not that verse in them and therefore being of doubtful Authority cannot conclude with certainty in a Question of Faith And there is an instance on the Catholick part For when the Arrians urge the saying of our Saviour No man knows that day and hour viz. of Judgment no not the Son but the Father only to prove that the Son knows not all things and therefore cannot be God in the proper sence St. Ambrose thinks he hath answered the Argument by saying those words no not the Son was thrust into the Text by the fraud of the Arrians So that here we have one objection which must first be cleared and made infallible before we can be ascertain'd in any such Question as to call them Hereticks that dissent 5. Secondly I consider that there are very many sences and designs of expounding Scripture and when the Grammatical sence is found out we are many times never the nearer it is not that which was intended for there is in very many Scriptures a double sence a literal and a Spiritual for the Scripture is a Book written within and without Apoc. 5. And both these sences are sub-divided For the literal sence is either natural or figurative And the Spiritual is sometimes allegorical sometimes anagogical nay sometimes there are divers literal sences in the same sentence as Saint Austin excellently proves in divers places and it appears in divers quotations in the New Testament where the Apostles and Divine Writers bring the same Testimony to divers purposes and particularly St. Paul's making that saying of the Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee to be an Argument of Christs Resurrection and a designation or ordination to his Pontificate is an instance very famous in his first and fifth Chapters to the Hebrews But now there being such variety of sences in Scripture and but few places so marked out as not to be capable of divers sences if mâ—n will write Commentaries as Herod made Orations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what infallible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be left whereby to judge of the certain dogmatical resolute sence of such places which have been the matter of Question For put case a Question were commenced concerning the degrees of glory in heaven as there is in the Schools a noted one To shew an inequality of reward Christs Parable is brought of the reward of ten Cities and of five according to the divers improvement of the Talents this sence is mystical and yet very probable and understood by men for ought I know to this very sence And the result of the Argument is made good by Saint Paul as one star differeth from another in glory so shall it be in the resurrection of the dead Now suppose another should take the same liberty of Expounding another Parable to a mystical sence and Interpretation as all Parables must be expounded then the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard and though differing in labour yet having an equal reward to any mans understanding may seem very strongly to prove the contrary and as if it were of purpose and that it were primum intentum of the Parable the Lord of the Vineyard determined the point resolutely upon the mutiny and repining of them that had born the burthen and heat of the day I will give unto this last even as to thee which to my sence seems to determine the Question of degrees They that work but little and they that work long shall not be distinguished in the reward though accidentally they were in the work And if this opinion could but answer St. Pauls words it stands as fair and perhaps fairer than the other Now if we look well upon the words of Saint Paul we shall find he speaks nothing at all of diversity of degrees of glory in beatified bodies but the differences of glory in bodies heavenly and earthly There are says he bodies earthly and there are heavenly bodies And one is the glory of the earthly another the glory of the heavenly one glory of the Sun another of the Moon c. So shall it be in the Resurrection For it is sown in corruption it is raised in incorruption Plainly thus our bodies in the Resurrection shall differ as much from our bodies here in the state of corruption as one Star does from another And now suppose a Sect should be commenced upon this Question upon lighter and vainer many have been either side must resolve to answer the others Argument whether they can or no and to deny to each other a liberty of Expounding the Parable to such a sence and yet themselves must use it or want an Argument But men use to be unjust in their own cases And were it not better to leave each other to their liberty and seek to preserve their own charity For when the words are capable of a mystical or a divers sence I know not why mens fancies or understandings should be more bound to be like one another than their faces And either in all such places of Scripture a liberty must be indulged to every honest and peaceable wise man or else all Argument from such places must be wholly declined Now although I instanced in a Question which by good fortune never came to open defiance yet there have been Sects framed upon lighter grounds more inconsiderable Questions which have been disputed on either side with Arguments less material and less pertinent Saint Austin laught at the Donatists for bringing that saying of the Spouse in the Canticles to prove their Schism Indica mihi ubi pascas ubi cubes in meridie For from thence they concluded the residence of the Church was only in the South part of the World only in Africa It was but a weak way of Argument yet the Fathers were free enough to use such mediums to prove mysteries of great concernment but yet again when they speak either against an Adversary or with consideration they deny that such mystical sences can sufficiently confirm a Question of Faith But I shall instance in the great Question of Rebaptization of Hereticks which many Saints and Martyrs and Confessours and divers Councils and almost all Asia and Africa did once believe and practise Their grounds for the invalidity of the baptism by a Heretick were such mystical words as these Oleum peccatoris non impinguet caput meum Ps. 140. And Qui baptizatur à mortuo quid proficit lavatio ejus Ecclus. 34. And Ab aquâ alienâ abstinete Prov. 5. And Deus peccatores non exaudit Joh. 9. And he that is not with me is against me Luke 11. I am not sure the other part had Arguments so
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
that he was asked by Budus Bishop of Emessa whether he did approve of the Epistle of Athanasius to Epictetus Bishop of Corinth and that his answer was Si haec apud vos scripta non sint adultera Nam plura ex his ab hostibus Ecclesiae deprehenduntur esse depravata And this was done even while the Authours themselves were alive for so Dionysius of Corinth complain'd that his writings were corrupted by Hereticks and Pope Leo that his Epistle to Flavianus was perverted by the Greeks And in the Synod of Constantinople before quoted the sixth Synod Macarius and his Disciples were convicted quòd Sanctorum testimonia aut truncârint aut depravârint Thus the third Chapter of Saint Cyprian's book De unitate Ecclesiae in the Edition of Pamelius suffered great alteration these words Primatus Petro datur wholly inserted and these super Cathedram Petri fundata est Ecclesia and whereas it was before super unum aedificat Ecclesiam Christus that not being enough they have made it super illum unum Now these Additions are against the faith of all old Copies before Minutius and Pamelius and against Gratian even after himself had been chastised by the Roman Correctors the Commissaries of Gregory XIII as is to be seen where these words are alledged Decret c. 24. q. 1. can Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum So that we may say of Cyprian's works as Pamelius himself said concerning his writings and the writings of other of the Fathers Vnde colligimus saith he Cypriani scripta ut aliorum Veterum à librariis variè fuisse interpolata But Gratian himself could doe as fine a feat when he listed or else some-body did it for him and it was in this very Question their beloved Article of the Pope's Supremacy for De poenit dist 1. c. Potest fieri he quotes these words out of Saint Ambrose Non habent Petri haereditatem qui non habent Petri sedem fidem not sedem it is in Saint Ambrose but this errour was made authentick by being inserted into the Code of the Law of the Catholick Church And considering how little notice the Clergy had of antiquity but what was transmitted to them by Gratian it will be no great wonder that all this part of the world swallowed such a bole and the opinion that was wrapped in it But I need not instance in Gratian any farther but refer any one that desires to be satisfied concerning this Collection of his to Augustinus Archbishop of Tarracon in emendatione Gratiani where he shall find fopperies and corruptions good store noted by that learned man But that the Indices expurgatorii commanded by Authority and practised with publick licence professe to alter and correct the sayings of the Fathers and to reconcile them to the Catholick sense by putting in and leaving out is so great an Imposture so unchristian a proceeding that it hath made the faith of all books and all Authours justly to be suspected For considering their infinite diligence and great opportunity as having had most of the Copies in their own hands together with an unsatisfiable desire of prevailing in their right or in their wrong they have made an absolute destruction of this Topick and when the Fathers speak Latine or breathe in a Roman Diocese although the providence of God does infinitely over-rule them and that it is next to a miracle that in the Monuments of Antiquity there is no more found that can pretend for their advantage then there is which indeed is infinitely inconsiderable yet our Questions and uncertainties are infinitely multiplied in stead of a probable and reasonable determination For since the Latines alwaies complain'd of the Greeks for privately corrupting the ancient Records both of Councils and Fathers and now the Latines make open profession not of corrupting but of correcting their writings that 's the word and at the most it was but a humane Authority and that of persons not alwaies learned and very often deceived the whole matter is so unreasonable that it is not worth a farther disquisition But if any one desires to enquire farther he may be satisfied in Erasmus in Henry and Robert Stephens in their Prefaces before the Editions of the Fathers and their Observations upon them in Bellarm. de scrip Eccl. in D. Reynolds de lib. Apoc. in Scaliger and Robert Coke of Leeds in Yorkshire in his Book De censura Patrum SECT IX Of the incompetency of the Church in its diffusive capacity to be Judge of Controversies and the impertinency of that pretence of the Spirit 1. AND now after all these considerations of the several Topicks Tradition Councils Popes and ancient Doctors of the Church I suppose it will not be necessary to consider the Authority of the Church apart For the Church either speaks by Tradition or by a representative body in a Council by Popes or by the Fathers for the Church is not a Chimaera not a shadow but a company of men believing in Jesus Christ which men either speak by themselves immediately or by their Rulers or by their proxies and representatives Now I have considered it in all senses but in its diffusive capacity in which capacity she cannot be supposed to be a Judge of Controversies both because in that capacity she cannot teach us as also because if by a Judge we mean all the Church diffused in all its parts and members so there can be no controversie for if all men be of that opinion then there is no Question contested if they be not all of a mind how can the whole diffusive Catholick Church be pretended in defiance of any one Article where the diffusive Church being divided part goes this way and part another But if it be said The greatest part must carry it Besides that it is impossible for us to know which way the greatest part goes in many Questions it is not always true that the greater part is the best sometimes the contrary is most certain and it is often very probable but it is always possible And when paucity of followers was objected to Liberius he gave this in answer There was a time when but three Children of the Captivity resisted the King's Decree And Athanasius wrote on purpose against those that did judge of truth by multitudes and indeed it concerned him so to doe when he alone stood in the gap against the numerous armies of the Arians 2. But if there could in this case be any distinct consideration of the Church yet to know which is the true Church is so hard to be found out that the greatest Questions of Christendom are judged before you can get to your Judge and then there is no need of him For those Questions which are concerning the Judge of Questions must be determined before you can submit to his judgement and if you can yourselves determine those great Questions which consist much in universalities then also you may determine the
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.