merits or at least of satisfactions more than they can spend or themselves do need and out of these the Church hath made her a treasure a kind of poor-mans box and out of this a power to take as much as they list to apply to the poor souls in Purgatory who because they did not satisfie for their venial sins or perform all their penances which were imposed or which might have been imposed and which were due to be paâ—d to God for the temporal pains reserved upon them after he had forgiven them the guilt of their deadly sins are forc'd sadly to roar in pains not inferiour to the pains of Hell excepting only that that they are not eternal That this is the true state of their Article of Indulgences we appeal to Bellarmine Now concerning their new foundation of Indulgences the first stone of it was laid by Pope Clement the sixth in his extravagant Vnigenitus de poenitentiis remissionibus A. D. 1350. This Constitution was published fifty years after the first Jubilee and was a new device to bring in Customers to Rome at the second Jubilee which was kept in Rome in this Popes time What ends of profit and interest it serv'd we are not much concern'd to enquire but this we know that it had not yet passed into a Catholick Doctrine for it was disputed against by Franciscus de Mayronis and Durandus not long before this extravagant and that it was not rightly form'd to their purposes till the stirs in Germany rais'd upon the occasion of Indulgences made Leo the tenth set his Clerks on work to study the point and make something of it But as to the thing it self it is so wholly new so meerly devis'd and forged by themselves so newly created out of nothing from great mistakes of Scripture and dreams of shadows from Antiquity that we are to admonish our charges that they cannot reasonably expect many sayings of the Primitive Doctors against them any more than against the new fancies of the Quakers which were born but yesterday That which is not cannot be numbred and that which was not could not be confuted But the perfect silence of Antiquity in this whole matter is an abundant demonstration that this new nothing was made in the later Laboratories of Rome For as Durandus said the Holy Fathers Ambrose Hillary Hierom Augustine speak nothing of Indulgences And whereas it is said that Saint Gregory six hundred years after Christ gave Indulgences at Rome in the stations Magister Angularis who lived about two hundred years since sayes he never read of any such any where and it is certain there is no such thing in the Writings of Saint Gregory nor in any History of that Age or any other that is authentick and we could never see any History pretended for it by the Roman Writers but a Legend of Ledgerus brought to us the other day by Surius which is so ridiculous and weak that even their own parties dare not avow it as true story and therefore they are fain to make use of Thomas Aquinas upon the Sentences and Altisiodorensis for story and record And it were strange that if this power of giving Indulgences to take off the punishment reservâ—d by God after the sin is pardoned were given by Christ to his Church that no one of the ancient Doctors should tell any thing of it insomuch that there is no one Writer of authority and credit not the more ancient Doctors we have named nor those who were much later Rupertus Tuitiensis Anselm or Saint Bernard ever took notice of it but it was a Doctrine wholly unknown to the Church for about one thousand two hundred years after Christ and Cardinal Cajetan told Pope Adrian the sixth that to him that readeth the Decretals it plainly appears that an Indulgence is nothing else but an absolution from that penance which the Confessor hath imposed and therefore can be nothing of that which is now adayes pretended True it is that the Canonical penances were about the time of Burchard lessen'd and alter'd by commutations and the ancient Discipline of the Church in imposing penances was made so loose that the Indulgence was more than the Imposition and began not to be an act of mercy but remisness and absolution without amends It became a Trumpet and a Leavy for the Holy War in Pope Vrban the Seconds time for he gave a plenary Indulgence and remission of all sins to them that should go and fight against the Sarazens and yet no man could tell how much they were the better for these Indulgences for concerning the value of Indulgences the complaint is both old and doubtful said Pope Adrian and he cites a famous gloss which tells of four Opinions all Catholick and yet vastly differing in this particular but the Summa Angelica reckons seven Opinions concerning what that penalty is which is taken off by Indulgences No man could then tell and the Point was but in the infancy and since that they have made it what they please but it is at last turn'd into a Doctrine and they have devised new Propositions as well as they can to make sence of it and yet it is a very strange thing a solution not an absolution it is the distinction of Bellarmine that is the sinner is let to go free without punishment in this World or in the world to come and in the end it grew to be that which Christendom could not suffer a heap of Doctrines without Grounds of Scripture or Catholick Tradition and not only so but they have introduc'd a way of remitting sins that Christ and his Apostles taught not a way destructive to the repentance and remission of sins which was preached in the Name of Jesus it brought into the Church false and fantastick hopes a hope that will make men asham'd a hope that does not glorifie the merits and perfect satisfaction of Christ a doctrine expresly dishonourable to the full and free pardon given us by God through Jesus Christ a practice that supposes a new bunch of Keyes given to the Church besides that which the Apostles receiv'd to open and shut the Kingdom of Heaven a Doctrine that introduces pride among the Saints and advances the opinion of their works beyond the measures of Christ who taught us That when we have done all that is commanded we are unprofitable servants and therefore certainly cannot supererogate or do more than what is infinitely recompenc'd by the Kingdom of Glory to which all our doings and all our sufferings are not worthy to be compar'd especially since the greatest Saint cannot but say with David Enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight no flesh living can be justified It is a practice that hath turn'd Penances into a Fair and the Court of Conscience into a Lombard and the labours of Love into the labours of Pilgrimages superstitious and useless wandrings from place to
would bring in after Ages to the Authority of a competent judge or witness say the same thing for they plainly confess that the first Ages spake little or nothing to the present Question or at least nothing to their sence of them for therefore they call in aid from the following Ages and make them suppletory and auxiliary to their designs and therefore there are no Traditions to our purposes And they who would willingly have it otherwise yet have taken no course it should be otherwise for they when they had opportunity in the Councils of the last Ages to determine what they had a mind to yet they never named the number nor expressed the particular Traditions which they would fain have the world believe to be Apostolical But they have kept the bridle in their own hands and made a reserve of their own power that if need be they may make new pretensions or not be put to it to justifie the old by the engagement of a conciliary declaration 11. Lastly We are acquitted by the testimony of the Primitive Fathers from any other necessity of believing than of such Articles as are recorded in Scripture And this is done by them whose Authority is pretended the greatest Argument for Tradition as appears largely in Irenaeus who disputes professedly for the sufficiency of Scripture against certain Hereticks who affirm some necessary truths not to be written It was an excellent saying of S. Basil and will never be wip'd out with all the eloquence of Perron in his Serm. de fide Manifestus est fidei lapsus liquidum superbiae viâ—ium vel respuere aliquid eorum quae Scriptura habet vel inducere quicquam quod scriptum non est And it is but a poor device to say that every particular Tradition is consigned in Scripture by those places which give Authority to Tradition and so the introducing of Tradition is not a super-inducing any thing over or besides Scripture because Tradition is like a Messenger and the Scripture is like his Letters of Credence and therefore Authorizes whatsoever Tradition speaketh For supposing Scripture does consign the Authority of Tradition which it might do before all the whole Instrument of Scripture it self was consigned and then afterwards there might be no need of Tradition yet supposing it it will follow that all those Traditions which are truly prime and Apostolical are to be entertained according to the intention of the Deliverers which indeed is so reasonable of it self that we need not Scripture to perswade us to it it self is authentick as Scripture is if it derives from the same fountain and a word is never the more the Word of God for being written nor the less for not being written but it will not follow that whatsoever is pretended to be Tradition is so neither is the credit of the particular instances consigned in Scripture dolosus versatur in generalibus but that this craft is too palpable And if a general and indefinite consignation of Tradition be sufficient to warrant every particular that pretends to be Tradition then S. Basil had spoken to no purpose by saying it is Pride and Apostasie from the Faith to bring in what is not written For if either any man brings in what is written or what he says is delivered then the first being express Scripture and the second being consigned in Scripture no man can be charged with superinducing what is not written he hath his answer ready And then these are zealous words absolutely to no purpose but if such general consignation does not warrant every thing that pretends to Tradition but only such as are truly proved to be Apostolical then Scripture is useless as to this particular for such Tradition gives testimony to Scripture and therefore is of it self first and more credible for it is credible of it self and therefore unless Saint Basil thought that all the will of God in matters of Faith and Doctrine were written I see not what end nor what sence he could have in these words For no man in the World except Enthusiasts and mad-men ever obtruded a Doctrine upon the Church but he pretended Scripture for it or Tradition and therefore no man could be pressed by these words no man confuted no man instructed no not Enthusiasts or Montanists For suppose either of them should say that since in Scripture the holy Ghost is promised to abide with the Church for ever to teach whatever they pretend the Spirit in any Age hath taught them is not to super-induce any thing beyond what is written because the truth of the Spirit his veracity and his perpetual teaching being promised and attested in Scripture Scripture hath just so consigned all such Revelations as Perron saith it hath all such Traditions But I will trouble my self no more with Arguments from any humane Authorities but he that is surprized with the belief of such Authorities and will but consider the very many testimonies of Antiquity to this purpose as of Constantine St. Hierom St. Austin St. Athanasius St. Hilary St. Epiphanius and divers others all speaking words to the same sence with that saying of St. Paul Nemo sentiat super quod scriptum est will see that there is reason that since no man is materially a Heretick but he that errs in a point of Faith and all Faith is sufficiently recorded in Scripture the judgment of Faith and Heresie is to be derived from thence and no man is to be condemned for dissenting in an Article for whose probation Tradition only is pretended only according to the degree of its evidence let every one determine himself but of this evidence we must not judge for others for unless it be in things of Faith and absolute certainties evidence is a word of relation and so supposes two terms the object and the faculty and it is an imperfect speech to say a thing is evident in it self unless we speak of first principles or clearest revelations for that may be evident to one that is not so to another by reason of the pregnancy of some apprehensions and the immaturity of others This discourse hath its intention in Traditions Doctrinal and Ritual that is such Traditions which propose Articles new in materiâ but now if Scripture be the repository of all Divine Truths sufficient for us Tradition must be considered as its instrument to convey its great mysteriousness to our understandings it is said there are traditive Interpretations as well as traditive propositions but these have not much distinct consideration in them both because their uncertainty is as great as the other upon the former considerations as also because in very deed there are no such things as traditive Interpretations universal For as for particulars they signifie no more but that they are not sufficient determinations of Questions Theological therefore because they are particular contingent and of infinite variety and they are no more Argument than the
give very great assistances to Episcopal Government and yet be no warranty for Tyrannical and although even the Sayings of the Fathers is greater warranty for Episcopacy and weighs more than all that can be said against it Yet from thence nothing can be drawn to warrant to any man an Empire over Consciences and therefore as the probability of it can be used to one effect so the fallibility of it is also of use to another but yet even of this no man is to make any use in general but when he hath a necessity and a greater reason in the particular and I therefore have joyn'd these two Books in one Volume because they differ not at all in the design nor in the real purposes to which by their variety they minister I will not pretend to any special reason of the inserting any of the other Books into this Volume it is the design of my Bookseller to bring all that he can into a like Volume excepting only some Books of devotion which in a lesser Volume are more fit for use As for the Doctrine and Practice of Repentance which because I suppose it may so much contribute to the interest of a good life and is of so great and so necessary consideration to every person that desires to be instructed in the way of godliness and would assure his salvation by all means I was willing to publish it first in the lesser Volume that men might not by the encreasing price of a larger be hindred from doing themselves the greatest good to which I can minister which I humbly suppose to be done I am sure I intended to have done in that Book And now my Lord I humbly desire that although the presenting this Volume to your Lordship can neither promote that honour which is and ought to be the greatest and is by the advantages of your worthiness already made publick nor obtain to it self any security or defence from any injury to which without remedy it must be exposed yet if you please to expound it as a testimony of that great value I have for you though this signification is too little for it yet I shall be at ease a while till I can converse with your Lordship by something more proportionable to those greatest regards which you have merited of mankind but more especially of My Lord Your Lordships most affectionate Servant JER TAYLOR THE CONTENTS and ORDER of the whole Volume The Apologie for Liturgie THE Authors PREFACE to the Apology for Authorized and Set Forms of Liturgy Quest. 1. Whether all Set Forms are unlawful Page 2 2. Whether are better in publick Set Forms injoyned by Authority or Set Forms composed by private Preachers Sect. 51. pag. 13 Episcopacy Asserted Sect. 1. CHrist did institute a government in his Church pag. 45 2. This Government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ. 46 3. With a power of joyning others and appointing Successors 47 4. This Succession is made by Bishops 48 § For the Apostle and Bishop are all one in Name and Person ibid. 5. and Office 49 6. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters 50 7. Giving to Apostles a power to do some offices perpetually necessary which to others he gave not 51 § as of Ordination ibid. 8. and Confirmation 52 9. and Superiority of Jurisdiction 55 10. So that Bishops are Successors in the office of Apostleship according to Antiquity 11. and particularly of S. Peter 61 12. And the institution of Episcopacy expressed to be jure divino by Primitive Authority 63 13. In pursuance of the Divine Institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches as S. James and S. Simeon at Jerusalem 65 14. S. Timothy at Ephesus 67 15. S. Titus at Crete 70 16. S. Mark at Alexandria 73 17. S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome 74 18. S. Polycarp at Smyrna and divers others 75 19. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical ordinance of the same authority with many other points generally believed 76 20. And was an office of Power and great Authority 77 21. Not lessened by the counsel and assistance of Presbyters ibid. 22. And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom 84 23. Who first distinguished names used before in common 85 24. Appropriating the word Episcopus to the supreme Church-officer 89 25. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church 91 26. and Doctor 92 27. and Pontifex ibid. 28. And these were a distinct order from the rest 94 29. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree 96 30. There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick 31. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands 97 32. For a Bishop had a power distinct and superior to that of Presbyters As of Ordination 101 33. and Confirmation 108 34. and Jurisdiction Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power 111 35. Requiring universal obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity 113 36. Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Laity in spiritual causes 115 37. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license 125 38. Reserving Church Goods to Episcopal dispensation 129 39. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Dioecese or to travel without leave of the Bishop 129 40. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased 130 41. Bishops only did vote in Council and neither Presbyters nor People 133 42. The Bishops had a propriety in the persons of their Clerks 138 43. Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes 139 44. And was aided by Presbyters but not impaired 144 45. So that the Government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary 148 46. For they are Schismaticks that separate from their Bishop 149 47. And Hereticks 150 48. And Bishops were always in the Church men of great honour 152 49. And trusted with affairs of Secular interest 157 50. And therefore were forced to delegate their power and put others in substitution 163 51. But they were ever Clergie-men for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church 164 A Discourse of the Real Presence Sect. 1. THE state of the Question 181 2. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture 186 3. Of the Sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel 188 4. Of the words of Institution 198 5. Of the Particle Hoc in the words of Institution 201 6. Of these words Hoc est corpus meum 208 7. Considerations of the manner circumstances and annexes of the Institution 213 8. Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture 217 9. Arguments from other Texts of Scripture proving Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament to be only Spiritual not Natural 219 10. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against Sense 223 11. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason 230 12. Transubstantiation was not the doctrine of the Primitive Church 249 13. Of Adoration of the Sacrament 267 The
Antioch for a time was governed for all these were Presbyters in the sence that S. Peter and S. John were and the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem * 4. Suppose this had been true in the sence that any body please to imagine yet this not being by any divine Ordinance that Presbyters should by their counsel assist in external regiment of the Church neither by any imitation of Scripture nor by affirmation of S. Hierom it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of S. Ambrose Postquà m omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae officia ordinata aliter composita res est quam coeperat It might be so at first de facto and yet no need to be so neither then nor after For at first Ephesus had no Bishop of its own nor Crete and there was no need for S. Paul had the supra-vision of them and S. John and other of the Apostles but yet afterwards S. Paul did send Bishops thither for when themselves were to go away the power must be concredited to another And if they in their absence before the constituting of a Bishop had intrusted the care of the Church with Presbyters yet it was but in dependance on the Apostles and by substitution not by any ordinary power and it ceased at the presence or command of the Apostle or the sending of a Bishop to reside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So S. Ignatius being absent from his Church upon a business of being persecuted he writ to his Presbyters Do you feed the Flock amongst you till God shall shew you who shall be your Ruler viz. My Successor No longer Your Commission expires when a Bishop comes * 5. To the conclusion of S. Hierom's discourse viz. That Bishops are not greater than Presbyters by the truth of Divine disposition I answer that this is true in this sence Bishops are not by Divine disposition greater than all those which in Scripture are called Presbyters such as were the Elders in the Councel at Jerusalem such as were they of Antioch such as S. Peter and S. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all and yet all of them were not Bishops in the present sence that is of a fixt and particular Diocess and Jurisdiction * Secondly S. Hierom's meaning is also true in this sence Bishops by the truth of the Lords disposition are not greater than Presbyters viz. quoad exercitium actûs that is they are not tyed to exercise jurisdiction solely in their own persons but may asciscere sibi Presbyteros in commune consilium they may delegate jurisdiction to the Presbyters and that they did not so but kept the exercise of it only in their own hands in S. Hierome's time this is it which he saith is rather by custom than by Divine dispensation for it was otherwise at first viz. de facto and might be so still there being no Law of God against the delegation of power Episcopal * As for the last words in the Objection Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere it is an assumentum of S. Hierom's own for all his former discourse was of the identity of Names and common Regiment de facto not de jure and from a fact to conclude with a Deberet is a Non sequitur unless this Debere be understood according to the exigence of the former Arguments that is they ought not by God's Law but in imitation of the practice Apostolical to wit when things are as they were then when the Presbyters are such as then they were they ought for many considerations and in great cases not by the necessity of a precept * And indeed to do him right he so explains himself Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere imitantes Moysen qui cum haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel septuaginta elegit cum quibus populum judicaret The Presbyters ought to judge in common with the Bishop for the Bishops ought to imitate Moses who might have ruled alone yet was content to take others to him and himself only to rule in chief Thus S. Hierome would have the Bishops do but then he acknowledges the right of sole jurisdiction to be in them and therefore though his counsel perhaps might be good then yet it is necessary at no time and was not followed then and to be sure is needless now For the Arguments which S. Hierome uses to prove this intention what ever it is I have and shall elsewhere produce for they yield many other considerations than this collection of S. Hierome and prove nothing less than the equality of the Offices of Episcopacy and Presbyterate The same thing is per omnia respondent to the parallel place of S. Chrysostom It is needless to repeat either the Objection or Answer * But however this saying of S. Hierome and the parallel of S. Chrysostom is but like an argument against an evident truth which comes forth upon a desperate service and they are sure to be killed by the adverse party or to run upon their own Swords For either they are to be understood in the sences above explicated and then they are impertinent or else they contradict evidence of Scripture and Catholick antiquity and so are false and die within their own trenches I end this argument of tradition Apostolical with that saying of Saint Hierome in the same place Postquam Vnusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse non Christi diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli Ego Apollo Ego autem Cephae in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ut schismatum semina tollerentur That is a publick decree issued out in the Apostles times that in all Churches one should be chosen out of the Clergy and set over them viz. to rule and govern the Flock committed to his charge This I say was in the Apostles times even upon the occasion of the Corinthian schism for then they said I am of Paul and I of Apollo and then it was that he that baptized any Catechumens took them for his own not as Christ's Disciples So that it was tempore Apostolorum that this decree was made for in the time of the Apostles S. James and S. Mark and S. Timothy and S. Titus were made Bishops by S. Hieroms express attestation It was also toto orbe decretum so that if it had not been proved to have been an immediate Divine institution yet it could not have gone much less it being as I have proved and as S. Hierom acknowledges Catholick and Apostolick * SECT XXII And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom BE ye followers of me as I am of Christ is an Apostolical precept We have seen how the Apostles have followed Christ how their tradition is consequent of Divine institution Next let us see how the Church hath followed the Apostles as the Apostles have followed Christ. Catholick practice is the next Basis of the
but is an affirmation of the manner though in disputation it be made the predicate of a proposition and the opposite member of a distinction That body which was crucified is not that body that is eaten in the Sacrament if the intention of the proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being but that body which was crucified the same body we do eat if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several manners of being and operating and this I noted that we may not be prejudiced by words when the notion is certain and easie And thus far is the sence of our doctrine in this Article 12. On the other side the Church of Rome uses the same words we do but wholly to other purposes affirming 1. That after the words of consecration on the Altar there is no bread in the Chalice there is no wine 2. That the accidents that is the colour the shape the bigness the weight the smell the nourishing qualities of bread and wine do remain but neither in the bread nor in the body of Christ but by themselves that is so that there is whiteness and nothing white sweetness and nothing sweet c. 3. That in the place of the substance of bread and wine there is brought the natural body of Christ and his blood that was shed upon the Cross. 4. That the flesh of Christ is eaten by every Communicant good and bad worthy and unworthy 5. That this is conveniently properly and most aptly called Transubstantiation that is a conversion of the whole substance of bread into the substance of Christs natural body of the whole substance of the wine into his blood In the process of which doctrine they oppose spiritualiter to sacramentaliter and realiter supposing the spiritual manducation though done in the Sacrament by a worthy receiver not to be sacramental and real 13. So that now the question is not Whether the symbols be changed into Christs body and blood or no For it is granted on all sides but whether this conversion be Sacramental and figurative or whether it be natural and bodily Nor is it whether Christ be really taken but whether he be taken in a spiritual or in a natural manner We say the conversion is figurative mysterious and Sacramental they say it is proper natural and corporal we affirm that Christ is really taken by Faith by the Spirit to all real effects of his passion they say he is taken by the mouth and that the spiritual and the virtual taking him in virtue or effect is not sufficient though done also in the Sacrament Hic Rhodus his saltus This thing I will try by Scripture by Reason by Sense and by Tradition SECT II. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture 1. THE Scriptures pretended for it are S. John 6. and the words of institution recorded by three Evangelists and S. Paul Concerning which I shall first lay this prejudice that by the confession of the Romanists themselves men learned and famous in their generations nor these places nor any else in Scripture are sufficient to prove Transubstantiation Cardinal Cajetan affirms that there is in Scripture nothing of force or necessity to infer Transubstantiation out of the words of institution and that the words seclusâ Ecclesiae authoritate setting aside the decree of the Church are not sufficient This is reported by Suarez but he says that the words of Cajetan by the command of Pius V. were left out of the Roman Edition and he adds that Cajetanus solus ex catholicis hoc docuit He only of their side taught it which is carelesly affirmed by the Jesuite for another Cardinal Bishop of Rochester John Fisher affirmed the same thing for speaking of the words of institution recorded by S. Matthew he says Neque ullum hîc verbum positum est quo probetur in nostrâ missâ veram fieri carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam There are no words set down here viz. in the words of institution by which it may be proved that in our Mass there is a true presence of the flesh and blood of Christ. To this I add a third Cardinal Bishop of Cambray de Aliaco who though he likes the opinion because it was then more common that the substance of bread does not remain after consecration yet ea non sequitur evidenter ex Scripturis it does not follow evidently from Scripture 2. To these three Cardinals I add the concurrent testimony of two famous Schoolmen Johannes Duns Scotus who for his rare wit and learning became a Father of a Scholastical faction in the Schools of Rome affirms Non extare locum ullum Scripturae tam expressum ut sine Ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat Transubstantiationem admittere There is no place of Scripture so express that without the declaration of the Church it can evidently compel us to admit Transubstantiation And Bellarmine himself says that it is not altogether improbable since it is affirmed à doctissimis acutissimis hominibus by most learned and most acute men The Bishop of Eureux who was afterwards Cardinal Richelieu not being well pleased with Scotus in this question said that Scotus had only considered the testimonies of the Fathers cited by Gratian Peter Lombard Aquinas and the Schoolmen before him Suppose that But these testimonies are not few and the witty man was as able to understand their opinion by their words as any man since and therefore we have the in-come of so many Fathers as are cited by the Canon-Law the Master of the sentences and his Scholars to be partly a warrant and none of them to contradict the opinion of Scotus who neither believed it to be taught evidently in Scripture nor by the Fathers 3. The other Schoolman I am to reckon in this account is Gabriel Biel. Quomodo ibi sit corpus Christi an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantiâ accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canone Bibliae How the body of Christ is there whether by conversion of any thing into it or without conversion it begin to be the body of Christ with the bread the accidents and the substance of the bread still remaining is not found expressed in the Canon of the Bible Hitherto I could add the concurrent Testimony of Ocham in 4. q. 6. of Johonnes de Bassolis who is called Doctor Ordinatissimus but that so much to the same purpose is needless and the thing is confessed to be the opinion of many writers of their own party as appears in Salmeron And Melchior Canus Bishop of the Canaries amongst the things not expressed in Scripture reckons the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. 4. If it be said that the Churches determination is a better interpreter of Scripture than they it
Symbol the name of his body and S. Cyprian speaks expresly to this purpose as you may see above Sect. 5. n. 9. 9. Sixthly The strange inconveniences and impossibilities the scandals and errours the fancy of the Capernaites and the temptations to faith arising from the literal sence of these words have been in other cases thought sufficient by all men to expound words of Scripture by tropes and allegories The heresie of the Authropomorphites and the Euchitae and the doctrine of the Chiliasts and Origen gelding himself proceeded from the literal sence of some texts of Scripture against which there is not the hundred part of so much presumption as I shall in the sequel make to appear to lie against this And yet no man puts out his right eye literally or cuts off his right hand to prevent a scandal Certain it is there hath been much greater inconvenience by following the letter of these words of institution than of any other in Scripture by so much as the danger of Idolatry and actual tyranny and uncharitable damning others and schism are worse than any temporal inconvenience or an error in a matter of speculation 10. Seventhly I argue out of S. Austins grounds thus As the Fathers did eat Christs body so do we under a diverse Sacrament and different symbols but in all the same reality whatsoever we eat the same they did eat for the difference is this only they received Christ by faith in him that was to come and we by faith in him that is come already but they had the same real benefit Christ as really as we for they had salvation as well as we But the fathers could not eat Christs flesh in a natural manner for it was not yet assumed and though it were as good an argument against our eating of it naturally that it is gone from us into heaven yet that which I now insist upon is that it was cibus spiritualis which they eat under the Sacrament of Manna therefore we under the Sacrament of bread and wine eating the same meat eat only Christ in a spiritual sence that is our spiritual meat And this is also true in the other Sacraments of the Rock and the Cloud Our Fathers eat of the same spiritual meat and drank of the same spiritual drink that is Christ so he afterwards expounds it Now if they did eat and drink Christ that is were by him in sacrament and to all reality of effect nourished up to life eternal why cannot the same spiritual meat do the same thing for us we receiving it also in sacrament and mystery 2. To which I add that all they that do communicate spiritually do receive all the blessing of the Sacrament which could not be unless the mystery were only sacramental mysterious and spiritual Maldonate speaking of something of this from the authority of S. Austin is of opinion that if S. Austin were now alive in very spite to the Calvinists he would have expounded that of Manna otherwise than he did It seems he lived in a good time when malice and the spirit of contradiction was not so much in fashion in the interpretations of the Scripture 11. Now let it be considered whether all that I have said be not abundantly sufficient to out-weigh their confidence of the literal sence of these sacramental words They find the words spoken they say they are literally to be understood they bring nothing considerable for it there is no Scripture that so expounds it there is no reason in the circumstances of the words but there is all the reason of the world against it as I have and shall shew and such for the meanest of which very many other places of Scripture are drawn from the literal sence and rest in a tropical and spiritual Now in all such cases when we find an inconvenience press the literal expression of a text instantly we find another that is figurative and why it is not so done in this the interest and secular advantages which are consequent to this opinion of the Church of Rome may give sufficient account In the mean time we have reason not to admit of the literal sence of these words not only by the analogy of other sacramental expressions in both Testaments I mean that of Circumcision and the Passeover in the Old and Baptism as Christ discoursed it to Nicodemus in the New Testament but also 2. Because the literal sence of the like words in this very Article introduced the Heresie of the Capernaites and 3. Because the subject and the predicate in the words of institution are diverse and disparate and cannot possibly be spoken of each other properly 4. The words in the natural and proper sence seem to command an unnatural thing the eating of flesh 5. They rush upon infinite impossibilities they contradict sence and reason the principles and discourses of all mankind and of all Philosophy 6. Our blessed Saviour tells us that the flesh profiteth nothing and as themselves pretend even in this mystery that his words were spirit and life 7. The literal sence cannot be explicated by themselves nor by any body for them 8. It is against the Analogy of other Scriptures 9. It is to no purpose 10. Upon the literal sence of the words the Church could not confute the Marcionites Eutychians Nestorians the Aquarii 11. It is against antiquity 12. The whole form of words in every of the members is confessed to be figurative by the opposite party 13. It is not pretended to be verifiable without an infinite company of miracles all which being more than needs and none of them visible but contestations against art and the notices of two or three sciences cannot be supposed to be done by God who does nothing superfluously 14. It seems to contradict an Article of faith viz. of Christs sitting in Heaven in a determinate place and being contained there till his second coming Upon these considerations and upon the account of all the particular arguments which I have and shall bring against it it is not unreasonable neither can it seem so that we decline the letter and adhere to the spirit in the sence of these words But I have divers things more to say in this particular from the consideration of other words of the institution and the whole nature of the thing SECT VII Considerations of the Manner and Circumstances and Annexes of the Institution 1. THE blessed Sacrament is the same thing now as it was in the institution of it But Christ did not really give his natural body in the natural sence when he eat his last Supper therefore neither does he now The first proposition is beyond all dispute certain evident and confessed Hoc facite convinces it This do what Christ did his Disciples are to do I assume Christ did not give his natural body properly in the last Supper therefore neither does he now the assumption I prove by divers arguments 2. First If then he gave
does our faith do the same thing for if we believe him there the want of bodily sight is supplied by the eye of faith and the Spirit is pretended to do no more in this particular and then his presence also will be less necessary because supplied by our own act Add to this That if after Christs ascension into Heaven he still would have been upon Earth in the Eucharist and received properly into our mouths and in all that manner which these men dream how ready it had been and easie to have comforted them who were troubled for want of his bodily presence by telling them Although I go to Heaven yet fear not to be deprived of the presence of my body for you shall have it more than before and much better for I will be with you and in you I was with you in a state of humility and mortality now I will be with you with a daily and mighty miracle I before gave you promises of grace and glory but now I will become to your bodies a seed of immortality And though you will not see me but under a vail yet it is certain I will be there in your Churches in your pixes in your mouths in your stomachs and you shall believe and worship Had not this been a certain clear and proportionable comfort to their complaint and present necessity if any such thing were intended It had been so certain so clear so proportionable that it is more than probable that if it had been true it had not been omitted But that such sacred things as these may not be exposed to contempt by such weak propositions and their trifling consequents the case is plain that Christ being to depart hence sent his holy Spirit in substitution to supply to his Church the office of a Teacher which he on Earth in person was to his Disciples when he went from hence he was to come no more in person and therefore he sent his substitute and therefore to pretend him to be here in person though under a disguise which we see through with the eye of Faith and converse with him by presential adoration of his humanity is in effect to undervalue the real purposes and sence of all the sayings of Christ concerning his departure hence and the deputation of the holy Spirit But for this because it is naturally impossible they have recourse to the Divine Omnipotency God can do it therefore he does But of this I shall give particular account in the Section of Reason as also the other arguments of Scripture I shall reduce to their heads of proper matter SECT X. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against sense 1. THAT which is one of the firmest pillars upon which all humane notices and upon which all Christian Religion does rely cannot be shaken or if it be all Science and all Religion must be in danger Now beside that all our notices of things proceed from sense and our understanding receives his proper objects by the mediation of material and sensible phantasms and the soul in all her operations during this life is served by the ministeries of the body and the body works upon the soul only by sense besides this S. John hath placed the whole Religion of a Christian upon the certainty and evidence of sense as upon one unmoveable foundation That which was from the beginning which we have seen with our eyes which we have beheld and our hands have handled of the word of life And the life was made manifest and we have seen it and bear witness and declare unto you eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us which we have seen and heard we declare unto you Tertullian in his book de anima uses this very argument against the Marcionites Recita Johannis testationem quod vidimus inquit quod audivimus oculis nostris vidimus manus nostrae contrectaverunt de Sermone vitae Falsa utique testatio si oculorum aurium manuum sensus natura mentitur his testimony was false if eyes and ears and hands be deceived In Nature there is not a greater argument than to have heard and seen and handled Sed quia profundâ non licet luctarier Ratione tecum consulamus proxima Interrogetur ipsa naturalium Simplex sine arte sensuum sententia And by what means can an assent be naturally produced but by those instruments by which God conveys all notices to us that is by seeing and hearing Faith comes by hearing and evidence comes by seeing and if a man in his wits and in his health can be deceived in these things how can we come to believe Corpus enim per se communis deliquat esse Sensus quo nisi prima fides sundata valebit Haud erit occultis de rebus quo referentes Confirmare animi quicquam ratione queamus For if a Man or an Angel declares Gods will to us if we may not trust our hearing we cannot trust him for we know not whether indeed he says what we think he says and if God confirms the proposition by a miracle an ocular demonstration we are never the nearer to the believing him because our eyes are not to be trusted But if feeling also may be abused when a man is in all other capacities perfectly healthy then he must be governed by chance and walk in the dark and live upon shadows and converse with fantasms and illusions as it happens and then at last it will come to be doubted whether there be any such man as himself and whether he be awake when he is awake or not rather then only awake when he himself and all the world thinks him to have been asleep Oculatae sunt nostrae manus credunt quod vident 2. Now then to apply this to the present question in the words of S. Austin Quod ergo vidistis panis est calix quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renunciant That which our eyes have seen that which our hands have handled is bread we feel it taste it see it to be bread and we hear it called bread that very substance which is called the body of our Lord. Shall we now say our eyes are deceived our ears hear a false sound our taste is abused our hands are mistaken It is answered Nay our senses are not mistaken For our senses in health and due circumstances cannot be abused in their proper object but they may be deceived about that which is under the object of their senses they are not deceived in colour and shape and taste and magnitude which are the proper objects of our senses but they may be deceived in substances which are covered by these accidents and so it is not the outward sense so much as the inward sense that is abused For so Abraham when he saw an Angel in the shape of a humane body was not deceived in the shape of a man for there was such a shape
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
says Bellarmine the body in the sign What 's that for neither the sign nor the body nor both together are broken For if either of them distinctly they either rush upon the errour which the Roman Synod condemn'd in Berengarius or upon that which they would fain excuse in Pope Nicolas but if both are broken then 't is true to affirm it of either and then the Council is blasphemous in saying that Christ's glorified body is passible and frangible by natural manducation So that it is and it is not it is not this way and yet it is no way else but it is some way and they know not how and the Council spake blasphemy but it must be made innocent and therefore it was requisite a cloud of a distinction should be raised that the unwary Reader might be amused and the Decree scape untoucht but the truth is they that undertake to justifie all that other men say must be more subtle then they that said it and must use such distinctions which possibly the first Authours did not understand But I will multiply no more instances for what instance soever I shall bring some or other will be answering it which thing is so far from satisfying me in the particulars that it encreases the difficulty in the general and satisfies me in my first belief For if no Decrees of Councils can make against them though they seem never so plain against them then let others be allowed the same liberty and there is all the reason in the world they should and no Decree shall conclude against any Doctrine that they have already entertained and by this means the Church is no fitter instrument to decree Controversies then the Scripture it self there being as much obscurity and disputing in the sense and the manner and the degree and the competency and the obligation of the Decree of a Council as of a place of Scripture And what are we the nearer for a Decree if any Sophister shall think his elusion enough to contest against the Authority of a Council yet this they do that pretend highest for their Authority which consideration or some like it might possibly make Gratian prefer S. Hierom's single Testimony before a whole Council because he had Scripture on his side which says that the Authority of Councils is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that Councils may possibly recede from their Rule from Scripture and in that which indeed was the case a single person proceeding according to Rule is a better Argument so saith Panormitan In concernentibus fidem etiam dictum unius privati esset dicto Papae aut totius Concilii praeferendum si ille moveretur melioribus Argumentis 11. I end this Discourse with representing the words of Gregory Nazianzen in his Epistle to Procopius Ego si vera scribere oportet ità animo assect us sum ut omnia Episcoporum Concilia fugiam quoniam nullius Concilii sinem laetum faustúmque vidi nec quod depulsionem malorum potiùs quà m accessionem incrementum habuerit But I will not be so severe and dogmaticall against them â—or I believe many Councils to have been call'd with sufficient Authoritie to have been managed with singular piety and prudence and to have been finished with admirable successe and truth And where we find such Councils he that will not with all veneration believe their Decrees and receive their Sanctions understands not that great duty he owes to them who have the care of our souls whose faith we are bound to follow saith Saint Paul that is so long as they follow Christ and certainly many Councils have done so But this was then when the publick interest of Christendome was better conserv'd in determining a true Article then in finding a discreet temper or a wise expedient to satisfie disagreeing persons As the Fathers at Trent did and the Lutherans and Calvinists did at Sendomir in Polonia and the Sublapsarians and Supralapsarians did at Dort It was in Ages when the summe of Religion did not consist in maintaining the Grandezza of the Papacy where there was no order of men with a fourth Vow upon them to advance Saint Peter's Chair when there was no man nor any company of men that esteem'd themselves infallible and therefore they searched for truth as if they meant to find it and would believe it if they could see it proved not resolved to prove it because they had upon chance or interest believed it then they had rather have spoken a truth then upheld their reputation but onely in order to truth This was done sometimes and when it was done God's Spirit never fail'd them but gave them such assistances as were sufficient to that good end for which they were assembled and did implore his aid And therefore it is that the four General Councils so called by way of eminency have gained so great a reputation above all others not because they had a better promise or more special assistances but because they proceeded better according to the Rule with less faction without ambition and temporal ends 12. And yet those very Assemblies of Bishops had no Authority by their Decrees to make a Divine Faith or to constitute new objects of necessary Credence they made nothing true that was not so before and therefore they are to be apprehended in the nature of excellent Guides and whose Decrees are most certainly to determine all those who have no Argument to the contrary of greater force and efficacy then the Authoritie or reasons of the Council And there is a duty owing to every Parish Priest and to every Diocesan Bishop these are appointed over us and to answer for our souls and are therefore morally to guide us as reasonable Creatures are to be guided that is by reason and discourse For in things of judgement and understanding they are but in form next above Beasts that are to be ruled by the imperiousness and absoluteness of Authority unless the Authority be divine that is infallible Now then in a juster height but still in its true proportion Assemblies of Bishops are to guide us with a higher Authority because in reason it is supposed they will do it better with more Argument and certainty and with Decrees which have the advantage by being the results of many discourses of very wise and good men But that the Authority of General Councils was never esteemed absolute infallible and unlimited appears in this that before they were obliging it was necessary that each particular Church respectively should accept them Concurrente universali totius Ecclesiae consensu c. in declaratione veritatum quae credenda sunt c. That 's the way of making the Decrees of Councils become authentick and be turn'd into a Law as Gerson observes and till they did their Decrees were but a dead letter and therefore it is that these later Popes have so laboured that the Council of Trent should be received
be the best way of proving the immortality of the Soul 357. Aristotle believed the Soul of man to be divine and not of the body 718 n. 41. There is no difference between the inferiour and superiour faculties of the Soul 728 n. 68. and 825 n. 19. The frailty of man's Soul 734 n. 83. Spirit Whether the ordinary gifts of the Spirit be immediate infusions of faculties and abilities or an improvement of our natural powers and means 4 n. 15. ad 34. How the Holy Spirit did inspire the Apostles and Writers of the New Testament as to the very words 8 n. 32. What in the sense of Scripture is praying with the Spirit 9 n. 37. and 47. What a Spirit is as to nature 236 § 11. How a Spirit is in place 236 § 11. The Holy Spirit perfects our Redemption 1. b. The Spirit of God 1. b. The frailty of the spirit of man 735 n. 83. The rule of the Spirit in us 782. To have received the Spirit is not an inseparable propriety of the regenerate 786. What the Spirit of God doth in us 787. The regenerate man hath not onely received the Spirit of God but is wholly led by him 788. Sublapsarians Their Doctrine in five Propositions 872. It is not much better then the Supralapsarian 873. Against this way 886 n. 8. Substance What a Substance is 236 § 11. Aquinas says that the Body of Christ is in the Elements not after the manner of a Body but a Substance this Notion considered 238 § 11. Succession Of the succession of Bishops 402 403. Supererogation How it and Christian perfection differ 590 591 n. 16 17. What it is 786. Superlative This is usually exprest by a synonymal word by an Hebraism 909. Supralapsarians Their Doctrine 871. T. Tears A Man by them must not judge of his Repentance nor by any other one way of expression 850 n. 86. Temptation Every temptation to sin if overcome increases not the reward 661 n. 7. No man is tempted of God 737 n. 86. The violence of a temptation doth not in the whole excuse sin 743. Testament In a humane or Divine Testament figurative words may be admitted 210 § 6. A certain Athenian's aenigmatical Testament 210 § 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What they were 835 n. 44. Theodoret. His words about Transubstantiation considered 264 265 § 12. Theology The power of Reason in matters of Theology 230 231 § 11. It findeth a medium between Vertue and Vice 673. Thief on the Cross. Why his Repentance was accepted 681 n. 65. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What that word means 637 n 10. 1. Epistle to Timothy Chap. 4. v. 8. explained 860 n. 114. Chap. 5. v. 22. explained 808 n. 31. Chap. 5.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 152 § 48. and 166 § 51. Chap. 3.15 16. the pillar and ground of truth explained 386 387. Chap. 1.5 6. explained 949 n. 8. 2. Epistle to Timothy Chap. 2. v. 4. explained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 162 § 49. Epistle to Titus Chap. 5.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 780 n. 30. Tradition Christ and his Apostles made use of Scripture for arguments not Tradition 353. An answer to that Objection Tradition is the best argument to prove the Scripture to be the word of God therefore it is a better Principle then that 354. Oral Tradition was useful to convey matter of fact onely not Doctrines 354 355 358. Oral Tradition a very uncertain means to convey down a Doctrine 356. The Romanists have no Tradition to assure them the Epistle to the Hebrews is Canonical 361. The doctrine of the Scriptures sufficiency proved by Tradition 410. Some of the Fathers by Tradition mean Scripture 410 411 412. What Tradition is and what the word meaneth 420 § 3. When and in what case Tradition is an useful Topick 421. It is necessary in the Church because the Scripture could not be conveyed to us without it 424. The Questions that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. The Tradition urged by the Ancients was not oral 425. The Romanists by their doctrine of Tradition gave great advantage to the Socinians 425. The doctrine of the Trinity relieth not upon Tradition but Scripture 425. That the doctrine of Infant-baptism relieth not upon Tradition onely but Scripture too 425 426. The validity of Baptism by Hereticks is not to be proved by Tradition without Scripture 426 427. The Procession of the Holy Ghost may be proved by Scripture without Tradition 427 428. The observation of the Lord's Day relieth not upon Tradition 428. Instances wherein oral Tradition has failed in conveyance 431. Saint Augustine's Rule to try Apostolical Traditions 432. Some Traditions said to be Apostolical have proceeded from the testimony of one man alone and he none of them 432. Of the means of proving a Tradition to be Apostolical 433. Of Vincentius Lirinensis his Rule to discern Apostolical Tradition 434. In the Question about the immaculate Conception Tradition is equally pretended on both sides 435. Traditions now held that are contrary to the Primitive Traditions 453 454. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for Auricular Confession 490. Of what use Tradition is in expounding Scripture 976. It is no sufficient medium to end Controversies 976 sect 5. per tot It was pretended by the Arians and divers other hereticks as well as the Orthodox 977 n. 3. The report of Tradition was uncertain even in the Ages Apostolical 978 n. 4. Tradition could not be made use of to determine the Controversie about Easter between the Churches of the East and West because both sides pretended it 979 n. 7. What Tradition it was the Fathers used to appeal to 979 n. 8. Transubstantiation The arts by which the Romanists have managed this Article Ep. Ded. to Real Pres. 174. It is acknowledged by the Romanists that this doctrine cannot be proved out of Scripture 187 § 2. and 298. How many figurative terms there are in the words of Institution 211 212 § 6. If this doctrine be true then the truth of Christian Religion which relieth upon the evidence of Sense is questionable 223 224 § 10. The Papists Answer to that Argument with our Reply 224 § 10. Bellarmine's Answer and a Reply upon it 226 § 10. If the testimony of our Senses in fit circumstances be not to be relied on the Catholicks could not have confuted the Valentinians and Marcionites 227 § 10. Irenaeus mentions an Impostour that essayed to counterfeit Transubstantiation long before the Roman Church decreed it 228 § 10. The miraculous Apparitions that are brought to prove Transubstantiation are proved to be false by their own doctrine 229 § 10. Picus Mirandula offered to maintain in Rome this Thesis Paneitas potest suppositare corpus Domini 230 § 11. How many ways the words of Christ Hoc est corpus meum may be verified without Transubstantiation 230 231 § 11. The folly of that assertion Credo quia impossibile est when applied to
desire to do natural or moral good things but even spiritual 784 4o. he may leave many sins which he is commanded to forsake 785 5o. he may leave some sins not only for temporal interest but out of fear of God and regard to his Law ibid. 6o. he may besides abstinence from evil do many good things 786 7 o he may have received the Spirit of God and yet be in a state of distance from God ibid. 6. The character of the unregenerate state or person n. 42.787 7. What are properly and truly sins of infirmity and how far they can consist with the regenerate estate 789 8. Practical advices to be added to the foregoing considerations 795. n. 65. Chap. IX Of the effect of Repentance viz. remission of Sins 800 Sect. 1. There is no sin but with Repentance may be pardoned ibid. 2. Of pardon of sins committed after baptism 802 3. Of the difficulty of obtaining pardon The doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church in this Article 803 4. Of the sin against the H. Ghost and in what sence it may be unpardonable 808 5. What sin is spoken of by our Lord Matth. 12.32 and that final impenitence is not it 810 6. The former doctrines reduced to practice 815 Chap. X. Of Ecclesiastical Penance or the fruits of Repentance 820 Sect. 1. What the fruits of Repentance are in general ibid. 2. Of Contrition or godly sorrow the reasons measures and constitution of it 821 3. Of the nature and differences of Attrition and Contrition 828 4. Of Confession 830 1o. Confession is necessary to Repentance ibid. 2o. It is due only to God 831 3o. In the Primitive Church there was no judicial absolution used in their Liturgies n. 54.838 4o. The judicial absolution of a Priest does effect no material change in the Penitent as to giving of pardon 841. n. 60 5. Attrition or imperfect Repentance though with absolution is not sufficient 842 6. Of Penance or satisfactions 844. 1o. sorrow and mourning 2o. Corporal austerities 3o. Prayers 847. 4o. Alms 848. 5o. forgiving injuries 6 o restitution 849 7. The former doctrine reduced to practice 850 8. The practice of Confession 854 9. The practice of Penances and corporal austerities 858 A Discourse in Vindication of Gods Attributes of Goodness and Justice in the matter of Original Sin against the Calvinists way of understanding it 1o. THe truth of the Article with the errors and mistakes about it 869 2o. Arguments to prove the truth 872 3o. Objections answered 881 4o. An Explication of Rom. 5.12 ad 19. 887 An Answer to the Bishop of Rochesters First Letter written concerning the Sixth Chapter of Original Sin in the Discourse of Repentance 895 The Bishop of Rochesters Second Letter upon the same subject 907 An Answer to the Second Letter from the Bishop of Rochester 909 The Liberty of Prophesying EPist Dedicatory Introduction Sect. 1. Of the nature of Faith and that the duty of it is compleated in believing the Articles of the Apostles Creed 941 2. Of Heresie its nature and measures That it is to be accounted according to the stricter capacity of the Christian Faith and not in opinions speculative nor ever to pious persons 947 3. Of the difficulty and uncertainty of arguments from Scripture in Questions not simply necessary nor literally determined 965 4. Of the difficulty of expounding Scripture 971 5. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to expound Scripture or determine questions 976 6. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Councils Ecclesiastical to expound Scripture or determine questions 984 7. Of the fallibility of the Pope and the uncertainty of his expounding Scripture and resolving Questions 995 8. How unable the Fathers or Writers Ecclesiastical are to determine our questions with certainty and truth 1007 9. How incompetent the Church in its diffusive capacity is to be Judge of controversies and how impertinent that pretence of the Spirit is 1011 10. Of the authority of reason and that it proceeding on the best grounds is the best Judge 1013 11. Of some causes of error in the exercise of reason which are in themselves inculpable 1016 12. How innocent error of mere opinion is in a pious person 1022 13. Of the deportment to be used toward persons disagreeing and reasons why they are not to be punished with death 1025 14. Of the practice of Christian Churches toward persons disagreeing and when persecution first came in use 1031 15. How far the Church or Governours may act to the restraining false or differing opinions 1034 16. Whether it be lawful for a Prince to give toleration to several Religions 1036 17. Of complying with disagreeing persons or weak Consciences in general 1038 18. A particular instance in the opinion of the Anabaptists to shew that there is so much reason on both sides of the Question that a pious person mistaking may be innocent in his error 1040 1o. The arguments usually alledged for baptizing Infants n. 3. ad 12.1041 1042 2o. How much the Anabaptists have to say in opposition to those arguments and to justifie their own tenent n. 12. ad 34.1043 ad 1051 3o. A reply to the arguments of the Anabaptists by the Author since the first Edition wherein the lawfulness of the Churches practice is established n. 34. ad fin Sect. 1051. ad 1068 19. That there ought not to be any toleration of doctrines inconsistent with piety or the publick good 1069 20. How far the Religion of the Church of Rome may be tolerated 1070 21. Of the duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion 1076 22. That particular men may communicate with Churches of different perswasions and how far they may do it 1077 The Discourse of Confirmation INtroduction Sect. 1. Of the Divine Original Warranty and Institution of the Rite of Confirmation 3 2. The Rite of Confirmation is a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministery 12 3. That Confirmation which by laying on of Hands gives the H. Spirit was actually continued and practised by all succeeding Ages of the Primitive Church 15 4. The Bishops were always and are still the only Ministers of Confirmation 18 5. The whole procedure of Confirmation is by prayer and laying on of Hands 22 6. Many great Graces and Blessings are consequent to the worthy reception and due ministery of Confirmation 24 7. Of preparation to Confirmation and the circumstances of receiving it 28 A Discourse of Friendship 1. HOw far a perfect Friendship is authorized by the principles of Christianity 35 2. What are the requisites of Friendship 38 3. What are the lawful expressions and acts of Friendship 42 4. Whether a Friend may be dearer than a Husband or Wife 47 5. What are the duties of Friendship 49 6. Ten Rules to be observed in the conduct of Friendship 50 Five Letters about change of Religion 53 THE AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE APOLOGY FOR AUTHORIZED and SET FORMS OF LITURGY WHEN Judges were instead of Kings and Hophni and Phinehas were among the Priests every
Acta in the Scripture therefore by Gods Holy Spirit and the end he also specifies viz. for the honour of that sacred order non propter legis necessitatem not that there is any necessity of law that Confirmation should be administred by the Bishop Not that a Priest may do it but that as S. Hierome himself there argues the Holy Ghost being already given in baptism if it happens that Bishops may not be had for he puts the case concerning persons in bondage and places remote and destitute of Bishops then in that case there is not the absolute necessity of a Law that Confirmation should be had at all A man does not perish if he have it not for that this thing was reserved to a Bishops peculiar ministration was indeed an honour to the function but it was not for the necessity of a Law tying people in all cases actually to acquire it So that this non necessarium is not to be referred to the Bishops ministration as if it were not necessary for him to do it when it is to be done nor that a Priest may do it if a Bishop may not be had but this non-necessity is to be referred to Confirmation it self so that if a Bishop cannot be had Confirmation though with much loss yet with no danger may be omitted This is the summe of S. Hieroms discourse this reconciles him to himself this makes him speak conformably to his first assertions and consequently to his arguments and to be sure no exposition can make these words to intend that this reservation of the power of Confirmation to Bishops is not done by the spirit of God and then let the sence of the words be what they will they can do no hurt to the cause and as easily may we escape from those words of his to Rusticus Bishop of Narbona Sed quia scriptum est Presbyteri duplici honore honorentur praedicare eos decet utile est benedicere congruum confirmare c. It is quoted by Gratian dist 95. can ecce ego But the gloss upon the place expounds him thus i. e. in fide the Presbyters may preach they may confirm their Auditors not by consignation of Chrism but by confirmation of faith and for this quotes a parallel place for the use of the word Confirmare by authority of S. Gregory who sent Zachary his legate into Germany from the See of Rome Vt Orthodoxos Episcopos Presbyteros vel quoscunque reperir◠potuisset in verbo exhortationis perfectos ampliùs confirmaret Certainly S. Gregory did not intend that his legate Zachary should confirm Bishops and Priests in any other sence but this of S. Hierom's in the present to wit in faith and doctrine not in rite and mystery and neither could S. Hierome himself intend that Presbyters should do it at all but in this sence of S. Gregory for else he becomes an Antistrephon and his own opposite * Yea but there is a worse matter than this S. Ambrose tells of the Egyptian Priests that they in the absence of the Bishop do confirm Denique apud Egyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus But 1. The passage is suspicious for it interrupts a discourse of S. Ambrose's concerning the Primitive Order of election to the Bishoprick and is no way pertinent to the discourse but is incircled with a story of a far different consequence which is not easily thought to have been done by any considering and intelligent Author 2. But suppose the clause be not surreptitious but natural to the discourse and born with it yet it is matter of fact not of right for S. Ambrose neither approves nor disproves it and so it must go for a singular act against the Catholick practice and Laws of Christendom 3. If the whole clause be not surreptitious yet the word Consignant is for S. Austin who hath the same discourse the same thing viz. of the dignity of Presbyters tells this story of the Act and honour of Presbyters in Alexandria and all Egppt almost in the other words of his Master S. Ambrose but he tells it thus Nam in Alexandriâ per totum Egyptum si desit Episcopus Consecrat Presbyter So that it should not be consignat but consecrat for no story tells of any confirmations done in Egypt by Presbyters but of consecrating the Eucharist in cases of Episcopal absence or commission I shall give account in the Question of jurisdiction that that was indeed permitted in Egypt some other places but Confirmation never that we can find elsewhere and this is too improbable to bear weight against evidence and practice Apostolical and four Councils and sixteen ancient Catholick Fathers testifying that it was a practice and a Law of Christendom that Bishops only should confirm and not Priests so that if there be no other scruple this Question is quickly at an end ** But S. Gregory is also pretended in objection for he gave dispensation to the Priests of Sardinia ut baptizatos Vnguant to aneal baptized people Now anointing the forehead of the baptized person was one of the solemnities of Confirmation so that this indulgence does arise to a power of Confirming for Vnctio and Chrismatio in the first Arausican Council and since that time Sacramentum Chrismatis hath been the usual word for Confirmation But this will not much trouble the business Because it is evident that he means it not of Confirmation but of the Chrisme in those times by the rites of the Church us'd in baptism For in his ninth Epistle he forbids Priests to anoint baptized people now here is precept against precept therefore it must be understood of several anointings and so S. Gregory expounds himself in this ninth Epistle Presbyteri baptizatos infantes signare bis infronte Chrismate non praesumant Presbyters may not anoint baptized people twice once they might now that this permission of anointing was that which was a ceremony of baptism not an act of confirmation we shall see by comparing it with other Canons In the collection of the Oriental Canons by Martinus Bracarensis It is decreed thus Presbyter praesente Episcopo non Signet infantes nisi forte ab Episcopo fuerit illi praeceptum A Priest must not sign infants without leave of the Bishop if he be present Must not sign them that is with Chrisme in their foreheads and that in baptism for the circumstant Canons do expresly explicate and determine it for they are concerning the rites of baptism and this in the midst of them And by the way this may answer S. Ambrose his Presbyteri consignant absente Episcopo in case it be so to be read for here we see a consignation permitted to the Presbyters in the Eastern Churches to be used in baptism in the absence of the Bishop and this an act of indulgence and favour and therefore extraordinary and of use to S. Ambrose his purpose of advancing the Presbyters
word spiritual is therefore carefully to be observed lest the contention of both parties should seem trifling and to be for nothing We say that Christs body is in the Sacrament really but spiritually They say it is there really but spiritually For so Bellarmine is bold to say that the word may be allowed in this question Where now is the difference Here by spiritually they mean present after the manner of a Spirit by spiritually we mean present to our Spirits only that is so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that of Faith or spiritual susception but their way makes his body to be present no way but that which is impossibe and implies a contradiction a body not after the manner of a body a body like a spirit a body without a body and a sacrifice of body and blood without blood corpus incorporeum cruor incruentus They say that Christs body is truly present there as it was upon the Cross but not after the manner of all or any body but after that manner of being as an Angel is in a place That 's there spiritually But we by the real spiritual presence of Christ do understand Christ to be present as the Spirit of God is present in the hearts of the Faithful by blessing and grace and this is all which we mean besides the tropical and figurative presence 9. That which seems of hardest explication is the word corporaliter which I find that Melanchthon used saying corporaliter quoque communicatione carnis Christi Christum in nobis habitare which manner of speaking I have heard he avoided after he had conversed with Oecolampadius who was able then to teach him and most men in that question but the expression may become warrantable and consonant to our doctrine and means no more than really and without fiction or beyond a figure like that of S. Paul in Christ dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily upon which S. Austin says In ipso inhabitat plenitudo Divinitatis corporaliter quia in Templo habitaverat umbraliter and in S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are opposed which are a shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ that is the substance the reality the correlative of the type and figure the thing signified and among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies solidare to make firm real and consistent but among the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or body signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every thing that is produced from nothing saith Phavorinus that is every thing that is real extra non ens that hath a proper being so that we receiving Christ in the Sacrament corporally or bodily understand that we do it really by the ministery of our bodies receiving him unto our souls And thus we affirm Christs body to be present in the Sacrament not only in type or figure but in blessing and real effect that is more than in the types of the Law the shadows were of the Law but the body is of Christ. And besides this the word corporally may be very well used when by it is only understood a corporal sign So S. Cyril of Jerusalem in his third Catechism says that the holy Ghost did descend corporally in the likeness of a Dove that is in a type or representment of a Doves body for so he and many of the Ancients did suppose and so he again uses the word Jesus Christ as a man did inspire the holy Spirit corporally into his Apostles where by corporally it is plain he means by a corporal or material sign or symbol viz. by breathing upon them and saying receive ye the holy Ghost In either of these sences if the word be taken it may indifferently be used in this question 10. I have been the more careful to explain the question and the use of these words according to our meaning in the question for these two reasons 1. Because until we are agreed upon the signification of the words they are equivocal and by being used on both sides to several purposes sometime are pretended as instruments of union but indeed effect it not but sometimes displease both parties while each supects the word in a wrong sence And this hath with very ill effect been observed in the conferences for composing the difference in this question particularly that of Poissy where it was propounded in these words Credimus in usu coenae Dominicae verè reipsâ substantialiter sen in substantiâ verum corpus sanguinem Christi spirituali ineffabili modo esse exhiberi sumi à fidelibus communicantibus Beza and Gallasius for the Reformed and Espencaeus and Monlucius for the Romanists undertook to propound it to their parties But both rejected it for though the words were not disliked yet they suspected each others sence But now that I have declared what is meant by us in these words they are made useful in the explicating the question 2. But because the words do perfectly declare our sence and are owned publickly in our doctrine and manner of speaking it will be in vain to object against us those sayings of the Fathers which use the same expressions for if by vertue of those words really substantially corporally verily and indeed and Christs body and blood the Fathers shall be supposed to speak for transubstantiation they may as well suppose it to be our doctrine too for we use the same words and therefore those authorities must signifie nothing against us unless these words can be proved in them to signifie more than our sence of them does import and by this truth many very many of their pretences are evacuated 11. One thing more I am to note in order to the same purposes that in the explication of this question it is much insisted upon that it be inquired whether when we say we believe Christs body to be really in the Sacrament we mean that body that flesh that was born of the Virgin Mary that was crucified dead and buried I answer I know none else that he had or hath there is but one body of Christ natural and glorified but he that says that body is glorified which was crucified says it is the same body but not after the same manner and so it is in the Sacrament we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ that was broken and powred forth for there is no other body no other blood of Christ but though it is the same which we eat and drink yet it is in another manner And therefore when any of the Protestant Divines or any of the Fathers deny that body which was born of the Virgin Mary that which was crucified to be eaten in the Sacrament as Bertram as S. Hierome as Clemens Alexandrinus expresly affirm the meaning is easie they intend that it is not eaten in a natural sence and then calling it corpus spirituale the word spiritual is not a substantial predication
meaning nothing to the giving of life So that here we have besides his authority an excellent Argument for us Christ said he that eateth my flesh hath life but the flesh that is the fleshly sence of it profits nothing to life but the Spirit that is the spiritual sence does therefore these words are to be understood in a spiritual sence 9. And because it is here opportune by occasion of this discourse let me observe this that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is infinitely useless and to no purpose For by the words of our Blessed Lord by the Doctrine of Saint Paul and the sence of the Church and the confession of all sides the natural eating of Christ's flesh if it were there or could so be eaten alone or of it self does no good does not give life but the spiritual eating of him is the instrument of life to us and this may be done without their Transubstantiated flesh it may be done in Baptisme by Faith and Charity by Hearing and understanding and therefore it may also in the blessed Eucharist although there also according to our Doctrine he be eaten only Sacramentally and Spiritually And hence it is that in the Mass-book anciently it is prayed after consecration Quaesumus Omnipotens Deus ut de perceptis muneribus gratias exhibentes beneficia potiora sumamus We beseech thee Almighty God that we giving thanks for these gifts received may receive greater gifts which besides that it concludes against the Natural Presence of Christ's body for what greater thing can we receive if we receive that it also declares that the grace and effect of the Sacramental communion is the thing designed beyond all corporal sumption and as it is more fully express'd in another Collect Vt terrenis affectibus expiati ad superni plenitudinem Sacramenti cujus libavimus sancta tendamus that being redeemed from all earthly affections we may tend to the fulness of the Heavenly Sacrament the Holy things of which we have now begun to taste And therefore to multiply so many miracles and contradictions and impossibilities to no purpose is an insuperable prejudice against any pretence less than a plain declaration from God Add to this that this bodily presence of Christ's body is either for corporal nourishment or for spiritual Not for Corporal for Natural food is more proper for it and to work a Miracle to do that for which so many Natural means are already appointed is to no purpose and therefore cannot be supposed to be done by God neither is it done for spiritual nourishment because to the spiritual nourishment vertues and graces the word and the efficacious signs faith and the inward actions and all the emanations of the Spirit are as proportion'd as meat and drink are to natural nourishment and therefore there can be no need of a Corporal Presence 2. Corporal manducation of Christ's body is apparently inconsistent with the nature and condition of a body 1. Because that which is after the manner of a spirit and not of a body cannot be eaten and drunk after the manner of a body but of a spirit as no man can eat a Cherubin with his mouth if he were made apt to nourish the soul but by the confession of the Roman Doctors Christ's body is present in the Eucharist after the manner of a spirit therefore without proportions to our body or bodily actions 2. That which neither can feel or be felt see or be seen move or be mov'd change or be changed neither do or suffer corporally cannot certainly be eaten corporally but so they affirm concerning the body of our blessed Lord it cannot do or suffer corporally in the Sacrament therefore it cannot be eaten corporally any more than a man can chew a spirit or eat a meditation or swallow a syllogism into his belly This would be so far from being credible that God should work so many Miracles in placing Christ's Natural body for spiritual nourishment that in case it were revealed to be placed there to that purpose it self must need one great Miracle more to verifie it and reduce it to act and it would still be as difficult to explain as it is to tell how the material fire of Hell should torment spirits and souls And Socrates in Plato's Banquent said well Wisdom is not a thing that can be communicated by local or corporal contiguity 3. That the Corporal presence does not nourish spiritually appears because some are nourished spiritually who do not receive the Sacrament at all and some that do receive yet fall short of being spiritually nourished and so do all unworthy Communicants This therefore is to no purpoose and therefore cannot be supposed to be done by the wise God of all the World especially with so great a pomp of Miracles 4. Cardinal Perron affirms that the Real Natural presence of Christ in the Sacrament is to greatest purpose because the residence of Christ's Natural body in our bodies does really and substantially joyn us unto God establishing a true and real Unity between God and Men. And Bellarmine speaks something like this de Euchar. l. 3. c. 9. But concerning this besides that every faithful soul is actually united to Christ without the actual residence of Christ's body in our bodies since every one that is regenerated and born a new of water and of the Spirit is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same plant with Christ as Saint Paul calls him Rom. 6.5 He hath put on Christ he is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh Galat. 3.27 Ephes. 5.30 and all this by Faith by Baptism by regeneration of the Spirit besides this I say this corporal union of our bodies to the body of God incarnate which these great and witty Dreamers dream of would make man to be God For that which hath a real and substantial unity with God is consubstantial with the true God that is he is really substantially and truly God which to affirm were highest blasphemy 5. One device more there is to pretend an usefulness of the Doctrine of Christ's Natural presence viz. that by his contact and conjunction it becomes the cause and the seed of the Resurrection But besides that this is condemn'd by Vasquez as groundless and by Suarez as improbable and a novel temerity it is highly confuted by their own Doctrine For how can the contact or touch of Christ's body have that or any effect on ours when it can neither be touch'd nor seen nor understood but by faith which Bellarmine expresly affirms But to return from whence I am digressed Tertullian adds in the same place Quia sermo caro erat factus proinde in causam vitae appetendus devorandus auditu ruminandus intellectu fide digerendus Nam paulò antè carnem suam panem quoque coelestem pronunciârat urgens usquequaque per allegoriam necessariorum pabulorum memoriam Patrum qui panes carnes Egyptiorum praeverterant
second or third remove if here Christ begins to change the particulars of his discourse it can primarily relate to nothing but his death upon the Cross at which time he gave his flesh for the life of the world and so giving it it became meat the receiving this gift was a receiving of life for it was given for the life of the world The manner of receiving it is by faith and hearing the word of God submitting our understanding the digesting this meat is imitating the life of Christ conforming to his doctrine and example and as the Sacraments are instruments or acts of this manducation so they come under this discourse and no otherwise 18. But to return This very allegory of the word of God to be called meat and particularly Manna which in this Chapter Christ particularly alludes to is not unusual in the old Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses said unto them This is the word which the Lord hath given us to eat This is the word which the Lord hath ordained you see what is the food of the soul even the eternal Word of God c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Word of God the most honourable and eldest of things is called Mana and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The soul is nourished by the Word qui pastus pulcherrimus est animorum 19. And therefore now I will resume those testimonies of Clemens Alexandrinus of Eusebius S. Basil S. Hierome and S. Bernard which I wav'd before all agreeing upon this exposition that the word of God Christs doctrine is the flesh he speaks of and the receiving it and practising it are the eating his flesh for this sence is the literal and proper and S. Hierom is express to affirm that the other exposition is mystical and that this is the more true and proper and therefore the saying of Bellarmine that they only give the mystical sence is one of his confident sayings without reason or pretence of proof and whereas he adds that they do not deny that these words are also understood literally of the Sacrament I answer it is sufficient that they agree in this sence and the other Fathers do so expound it with an exclusion to the natural sence of eating Christ in the Sacrament particularly this appears in the testimonies of Origen and Saint Ambrose above quoted to which I add the words of Eusebius in the third book of his Theologia Ecclesiastica expounding the 63. verse of the sixth of Saint John he brings in Christ speaking thus Think not that I speak of this flesh which I bear and do not imagine that I appoint you to drink this sensible and corporal blood But know ye that the words which I have spoken are spirit and life Nothing can be fuller to exclude their interpretation and to affirm ours though to do so be not usual unless they were to expound Scripture in opposition to an adversary and to require such hard conditions in the sayings of men that when they speak against Titius they shall be concluded not to speak against Cajus if they do not clap their contrary negative to their positive affirmative though Titius and Cajus be against one another in the cause is a device to escape rather than to intend truth and reality in the discourses of men I conclude It is notorious and evident what Erasmus notes upon this place Hunc locum veteres interpretantur de doctrinâ coelesti sic enim dicit panem suum ut frequenter dixit sermonem suum The Ancient Fathers expound this place of the heavenly doctrine so he calls the bread his own as he said often the word to be his And if the concurrent testimonies of Origen Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus S. Basil Athanasius Eusebius S. Hierom S. Ambrose S. Austin Theophylact and S. Bernard are a good security for the sence of a place of Scripture we have read their evidence and may proceed to sentence 20. But it was impossible but these words falling upon the allegory of bread and drink and signifying the receiving Christ crucified and communicating with his passion in all the wayes of Faith and Sacrament should also meet with as allegorical expounders and for the likeness of expression be referr'd to sacramental manducation And yet I said this cannot at all infer Transubstantiation though sacramental manducation were only and principally intended For if it had been spoken of the Sacrament the words had been verified in the spiritual sumption of it for as Christ is eaten by faith out of the Sacrament so is he also in the Sacrament as he is real and spiritual meat to the worthy Hearer so is he to the worthy Communicant as Christ's flesh is life to all that obey him so to all that obediently remember him so Christ's flesh is meat indeed however it be taken if it be taken spiritually but not however it be taken if it be taken carnally He is nutritive in all the wayes of spiritual manducation but not in all the wayes of natural eating by their own confession nor in any by ours And therefore it is a vain confidence to run away with the conclusion if they should gain one of the premises But the truth is this It is neither properly spoken of the Sacrament neither if it were would it prove any thing of Transubstantiation 21. I will not be alone in my assertion though the reasonableness and evidence would bear me out Saint Austin saith the same Spiritualiter intelligite quod loquutus sum vobis Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis Sacramentum aliquod commendavi vobis spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit nos That which I have spoken is to be understood spiritually ye are not to eat that body which ye see I have commended a Sacrament to you which being understood spiritually will give you life where besides that he gives testimony to the main question on our behalf he also makes sacramentally and spiritually to be all one And again Vt quia jam similitudinem mortis ejus in baptismo accipimus similitudinem quoque sanguinis carnis sumamus ita ut veritas non desit in sacramento ridiculum nullum fiat in Paganis quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus That as we receive the similitude of his Death in Baptism so we may also receive the likeness of his Flesh and Blood so that neither truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor the Pagans ridiculously affirm that we should drink the blood of the crucified Man Nothing could be spoken more plain in this Question We receive Christ's body in the Eucharist as we are baptized into his death that is by figure and likeness In the Sacrament there is a verity or truth of Christ's body and yet no drinking of blood or eating of flesh so as the Heathen may calumniate us by saying we do that which the men of Capernaum thought Christ taught
meus hic est sanguis Testamenti Now this is confuted before for it can only be true when there is no difference of subject and predicate as in all figures and sacraments and artificial representments there are Some others say This is that is this shall be my body So that is demonstrates not what is but what shall be But this prevailed not amongst them Others say that This signifies Nothing So Innocentius the third Major the Count of Mirandula De capite Fontium and Catharinus Others yet affirm that This signifies these accidents So Ruard Tapper and others whom Suarez reckons and confutes Thomas Aquinas and his Scholars affirm that This demonstrates neither bread nor the body nor nothing nor the accidents but a substance indefinitely which is under the accidents of bread as when Christ turned the water into wine he might have said Hoc est vinum not meaning that water is wine but this which is here or this which is in the vessel is wine which is an instance in which Bellarmine pleases himself very much and uses it more than once not at all considering that in this form of speech there is the same mistake as in the former for in this example there are not two things as we contend there are in the Sacrament and that to make up the proposition the understanding is forc'd to make an artificial subject and this refers to wine and is determined by his imaginary subject and makes not an essential or physical but a logical predication This which is in the vessel is wine and the proposition is identical if it be reduc'd to a substantial But when Christ said Hoc est corpus meum hoc first neither points to corpus as the others do to vinum even by their own confession nor yet secondly to an artificial subject whereby it can by imagination become demonstrative and determinate for then it were no real affirmative not at all significative much less effective of a change nor yet thirdly will they allow that it points to that subject which is really there viz. bread but what then It demonstrates something real that either 1. is not the predicate and then there would be two things disparate signified by it two distinct substances which in this case could be nothing but bread and the body of Christ or 2. it demonstrates nothing but the predicate and then the proposition were identical viz. this body of Christ is the body of Christ which is an absurd predication or else 3. it demonstrates something that is indemonstrable pointing at something that is nothing certain and then it cannot be pointed at or demonstrated for if by this which is under the species they mean any certain substance it must be bread or the body of Christ either of which undoes their cause 4. But if it be inquired by what Logick or Grammar it can be that a Pronoun demonstrative should signify indeterminately that is an individuum vagum They tell us no it does not but it signifies an individual determinate substance under the accidents of bread not according to the formality of the bread but secundùm rationem substantiae communem individuam vagè per ordinem ad accidentia but according to the formality of a substance common and individual indefinitely or indeterminately by order to those accidents So Gregory de Valentia which is as good and perfect non-sence as ever was spoken It is determinate and not determinate it is substantial in order to accidents individual and yet common universal and particular it is limited but after an unlimited manner that is it is and it is not that is it is the Logick and the Grammar and the proper sence of Transubstantiation which is not to be understood but by them that know the new and secret way to reconcile contradictories Bellarmine sweetens the sence of this as well as he may and says that the Pronoun demonstrative does point out and demonstrate the species that is the accidents of bread these accidents are certain and determinate so that the Pronoun demonstrative is on the side of the species or accidents not of the substance But yet so as to mean not the accidents but the substance and not the substance which is but which shall be for it is not the same yet which indeed is the same non-sence with the former abused or set off with a distinction the parts of which contradict each other The Pronoun demonstrative does only point to the accidents and yet does not mean the accidents but the substance under them and yet it does not mean the substance that is under them but that which shall be for the substance which is meant is not yet and it does not point at the substance but yet it means it For the substance indeed is meant by the Pronoun demonstrative but that it does not at all demonstrate it but the accidents only And indeed this is a fine secret The substance is pointed at before it is and the demonstration is upon the accidents but means the substance in obliquo but not in recto not directly but as by the bie just as a man can see a thing before it be made and by pointing at a thing which you see demonstrates or shews you a thing which shall never be seen But then if you desire to know how it was pointed at before it was that is the secret not yet revealed But finally this is the doctrine that hath prevailed at least in the Jesuits Schools This points out something under the accidents of bread meaning This which is contained under the accidents of bread is my body there it rests But before it go any further I shall disturb his rest with this Syllogism When Christ said Hoc this is my body by this he meant this which is contained under the accidents of bread is my body But at that instant that which was contained under the accidents of bread was the substance of bread Therefore to the substance of bread Christ pointed that he related to by the Pronoune demonstrative and of that he affirmed it was his body The Major is that the Jesuits contend for the Minor is affirmed by Bellarmine Quando dicitur Hoc tum non est praesens substantia corporis Christi therefore the conclusion ought to be his and owned by them However I will make bold to call it a demonstration upon their own grounds and conclude that it is bread and Christs body too and that is the doctrine of the Protestants And I add this also that it seems a great folly to declaim against us for denying the literal natural sence and yet that themselves should expound it in a sence which suffers a violence and a most unnatural ungrammatical torture for if they may change the words from the right sence and case to the oblique and indirect why may not we and it is less violence to say Hoc est corpus meum i. e. hic panis est
does not mean they receive him not at all Just as we say when a man eats but a little he does not eat for as good never a jot as never the better This I say is not a sufficient escape 1. Because S. Austin opposes sacramental receiving to the true and real and says that the wicked only receive it sacramentally but not the thing whose Sacrament it is so that this is not a proposition of degrees but there is a plain opposition of one to the other 2. It is true S. Austin does not say that the wicked do not receive Christ at all for he says they receive him sacramentally but he says they do not at all receive him truly and the wicked man cannot say he does and he proves this by unanswerable arguments out of Scripture 3. This excuse will not with any pretence be fitted with the sayings of the other Fathers nor to all the words of S. Austin in this quotation and much less in others which I have and shall remark particularly this that he calls that which the wicked eat nothing but signum corporis sanguinis His words are these Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus procul dubio non manducat spiritualiter carnem non bibit sanguinem licèt carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus signum corporis sanguinis he does not eat the body and drink the blood spiritually although carnally and visibly he presses with his teeth the sign of the body and blood Plainly all the wicked do but eat the sign of Christs body all that is to be done beyond is to eat it spiritually There is no other eating but these two and from S. Austin it was that the Schools received that famous distinction of Panis Dominus and Panis Domini Judas received the bread of the Lord against the Lord But the other Apostles received the bread which was the Lord that is his body But I have already spoken of the matter of this argument in the third Paragraph num 7. which the Reader may please to add to this to make it fuller 10. Ninthly Lastly In the words of Institution and Consecration as they call them the words which relate to the consecrated wine are so different in the Evangelists and S. Paul respectively as appears by comparing them together that 1. It does not appear which words were literally spoken by our blessed Saviour for all of them could not be so spoken as they are set down 2. That they all regarded the sence and meaning of the mystery not the letters and the syllables 3. It is not possible to be certain that Christ intended the words of any one of them to be consecratory or effective of what they signifie for every one of the relators differ in the words though all agree in the things as the Reader may observe in the beginning of the fourth Paragraph where the four forms are set by each other to be compared 4. The Church of Rome in the consecration of the Chalice uses a form of words which Christ spake not at all nor are related by S. Matthew or S. Mark or S. Luke or S. Paul but she puts in some things and changes others her form is this Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi aeterni Testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum For this is the chalice of my blood of the New and eternal Testament the mystery of faith which shall be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins what is added is plain what is altered would be very material if the words were consecratory for they are not so likely to be operative and effective as the words of Christ recited by S. Matthew and S. Mark this is my blood and if this had not been the ancient form used in the Church of Rome long before the doctrine of Transubstantiation was thought of it is not to be imagined that they would have refused the plainer words of Scripture to have made the Article more secret the form less operative the authority less warrantable the words less simple and natural But the corollary which is natural and proper from the particulars of this argument is that the mystery was so wholly spiritual that it was no matter by what words it were expressed so the spirit of it were retained and yet if it had been an historical natural proper sence that had been intended it ought also in all reason to have been declared or much more effected by a natural and proper and constant affirmative But that there is nothing spoken properly is therefore evident because there are so many predications and all mean the same mystery Hic est sanguis meus N. Testamenti and Hic calix est N. Testamentum in meo sanguine and Hic est calix sanguinis mei in the Roman Missal all this declares it is mysterium fidei and so to be taken in all sences and those words are left in their Canon as if on purpose either to prevent the literal and natural understanding of the other words or for the reducing the communicants to the only apprehensions of faith It is mysterium fidei not sanguis naturalis a mystery of faith not natural blood For supposing that both the forms used by S. Matthew and S. Luke respectively could be proper and without a figure and S. Matthews Hic est sanguis Testamenti did signifie This is the divine promise for so Bellarmine dreams that Testament there signifies and that in S. Lukes words This cup is the Testament it signifies the instrument of the Testament for so a Will or a Testament is taken either for the thing willed or the Parchment in which it is written yet how are these or either of these affirmative of the wine being transubstantiated into blood It says nothing of that and so if this sence of those words does avoid a trope it brings in a distinct proposition if it be spoken properly it is more distant from giving authority to their new doctrine and if the same word have several sences then in the sacramental proposition as it is described by the several Evangelists there are several predicates and therefore it is impossible that all should be proper And yet besides this although he thinks he may freely say any thing if he covers it with a distinction yet the very members of this distinction conclude against his conclusion for if Testament in one place be taken for the instrument of his Testament it is a tropical loquution just as I say my bible meaning my book is the word of God that is contains the word of God it is a Metonymie of the thing containing for that which it contains But this was more than I needed and therefore I am content it should pass for nothing SECT VIII Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture 1.
blessed Saviour Whatsoever entereth into the mouth goeth into the belly and is cast forth into the draught meaning that all food that is taken by the mouth hath for his share the fortune of the belly and indeed manducation and ejection are equally deminutions of any perfect thing and because it cannot without blasphemy be spoken that the natural body of Christ ought or can suffer ejection neither can it suffer manducation To this Bellarmine weakly answers that these words of Christ are only true of that which is taken to nourish the body which saying of his is not true for if it be taken to purge the body or to make the body sick or to make it lean or to minister to lust or to chastise the body as those who in pennances have masticated aloes and other bitter gums yet still it is cast into the draught 2. But suppose his meaning true yet this argument will not so be put off because although the end of receiving the blessed Sacrament is not to nourish the body yet that it does nourish the body is affirmed by Irenaeus Justin Martyr and others of which I have already given an account To which I here add the plain words of Rabanus Illud corpus Christi in nos convertitur dum id manducamus bibimus That body is chang'd into us when we eat it and drink it and therefore although it hath a higher purpose yet this also cannot be avoided 3. Either we may manducate the accidents only or else the substance of bread or the substance of Christs body If we manducate only the accidents then how do we eat Christs body If we manducate bread then 't is capable of all the natural alterations and it cannot be denied But if we manducate Christs body after a natural manner what worse thing is it that it descends into the guts than that it goes into the stomach to be cast forth than to be torn in pieces with the teeth as I have proved that it is by the Roman Doctrine Now I argue thus if we eat Christs natural body we eat it either Naturally or Spiritually if it be eaten only Spiritually then it is Spiritually digested and is Spiritual nourishment and puts on accidents and affections Spiritual But if the natural body be eaten naturally then what hinders it from affections and transmutations natural 4. Although Algerus and out of him Bellarmine would have Christians stop their ears against this argument and so would I against that doctrine of which these fearful conclusions are unavoidable consequents yet it is disputed in the Summa Angelica and an instance or case put which to my sence seems no inconsiderable argument to reprove the folly of this doctrine For saith he what if the Species pass indigested into the belly from the stomach He answers that they were not meat if they did not nourish and therefore it is probable as Boetius says that the body of our Lord does not go into the draught though the Species do And yet it is determined by the Gloss on the Canon Law that as long as the species remain uncorrupted the holy body is there under those Species and therefore may be vomited and consequently ejected all ways by which the Species can pass unalter'd Eousque progreditur corpus quousque species said Harpsfield in his disputation at Oxford If these things be put together viz. the body is there so long as the Species are uncorrupted and the Species may remain uncorrupted till they be cast upwards or downwards as in case of sickness it follows that in this case which is a case easily contingent by their doctrine the holy body must pass in latrinam And what then it is to be ador'd as a true Sacrament though it come from impure places though it be vomited So said Vasquez and it is the prevailing opinion in their Church Add to this that if this nourishment does not descend and cleave to the guts of the Priest it is certain that God does not hear his prayers for he is enjoyned by the Roman Missal published by authority of the Council of Trent and the command of Pope Pius the Fourth to pray Corpus tuum domine quod sumpsi sanguis quem potavi adhaereat visceribus meis Let thy body O Lord which I have taken and the blood which I have drunk cleave to my bowels It seems indeed they would have it go no further to prevent the inconveniences of the present argument but certain it is that if they intended it for a figurative speech it was a bold one and not so fitted for edification as for an objection But to return This also was the argument of Origen Quod si quicquid ingreditur in os in ventrem abit in secessum ejicitur ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei perque obsecrationem juxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum ejicitur haec quidem de typico symbolicóque corpore He plainly distinguishes the material part from the spiritual in the Sacrament and affirms that according to the material part that meat that is sanctified by the word of God and prayer enters into the mouths descends into the belly and goes forth in the natural ejection And this is only true of the typical and symbolical body Now besides that it affirms the words of our blessed Saviour to have effect in the Sacrament he affirms that the material part the type and symbols are the body of Christ that is his body is present in a typical and symbolical manner This is the plain and natural sence of the words of Origen But he must not mean what he means if he says any thing in an other place that may make for the Roman opinion And this is their way of answering objections brought from the Fathers they use to oppose words to words and conclude they must mean their meaning or else they contradict themselves And this trick Bellarmine uses frequently and especially Cardinal Perron and from them the lesser Writers And so it happens in this present argument for other words of Origen are brought to prove he inclined to the Roman opinion But I demand are the words more contradictory if they be both drawn to a spiritual sence than if they be both drawn to a natural 2. Though we have no need to make use of it yet it is no impossible thing that the Fathers should contradict one another and themselves too as you may see pretended violently by Cardinal Perron in his answer to K. James 3. But why must all sheaves bow to their sheaf and all words be wrested to their fancy when there are no words any where pretended from them but with less wresting than these must suffer for them they will be brought to speak against them or at least nothing for them But let us see what other words Origen hath by which we must expound
thing could be and not be at the same time then there would be something whose being were not to be Nay Dominicus à Soto affirms expresly that not only things only cannot be done by God which intrinsecally formally and expresly infer two contradictories but those also which the understanding at the first proposal does by his natural light dissent from and can by no means admit because that which is so repugnant to the understanding naturally does suâ naturâ repugnare is impossible in the nature of things and therefore when it is said in S. Luke nothing is impossible with God it is meant Nothing is impossible but that which naturally repugnes to the understanding Now to apply this to the present question Our adversaries do not deny but that in the doctrine of Transubstantiation there are a great many impossibilities which are such naturally and ordinarily but by Divine power they can be done but that they are done they have no warrant but the plain literal sence of the words of Hoc est corpus meum Now this is so far from proving that God does work perpetual miracles to verifie their sence of it that the working of miracles ought to prove that to be the sence of it Now the probation of a proposition by miracles is an open thing clear as thunder and being a matter of sense and consequently more known than the thing which they intend to prove ought not to be proved by that which is the thing in question And therefore to say that God will work a miracle rather than his words should be false is certain but impertinent For concerning the words themselves there is no question and therefore now no more need of miracles to confirm them concerning the meaning of them is the question They say this is the meaning Quest. How do you prove it since there are so many impossibilities in it naturally and ordinarily Answ. Because God said it therefore it is true Resp. Yea that God said the words we doubt not but that his words are to be understood in your sence that I doubt because if I believe your sence I must admit many things ordinarily impossible Answ. Yea but nothing is impossible to God Resp. True nothing that can be done exceeds his power but supposing this absolutely possible yet how does it appear that God will do a miracle to verifie your sence which otherwise cannot be true when without a miracle the words may be true in many other sences Jam dic posthume for it is hard that men by a continual effort and violence should maintain a proposition against reason and his unquestionable maximes thinking it sufficient to oppose against it Gods omnipotency as if the crying out a miracle were a sufficient guard against all absurdity in the world as if the wisdom of God did arm his power against his truth and that it were a fineness of Spirit to be able to believe the two parts of a contradiction and all upon confidence of a miracle which they cannot prove And indeed it were something strange that thousands and thousands of times every day for above 1500 years together the same thing should be done and yet this should be called a miracle that is a daily extraordinary for by this time it would pass into nature and a rule and so become a supernatural natural event an extraregular rule an extraordinary ordinary a perpetual wonder that is a wonder and no wonder and therefore I may infer the proper corollaries of this argument in the words of Scotus whose opinion it was pity it could be overborn by tyranny 1. That the truth of the Eucharist may be saved without Transubstantiation And this I have already proved 2. The substance of bread under the accidents is more a nourishment than the accidents themselves and therefore more represents Christs body in the formality of Spiritual nourishment And indeed that I may add some weight to these words of Scotus which are very true and very reasonable 1. It cannot be told why bread should be chosen for the symbol of the body but because of his nourishing faculty and that the accidents should nourish without substance is like feeding a man with musick and quenching his thirst with a Diagram 2. It is fantastical and mathematical bread not natural which by the doctrine of Transubstantiation is represented on the table and therefore unfit to nourish or to typifie that which can 3. Painted bread might as well be symbolical as the real if the real bread become no bread for then that which remains is nothing but the accidents as colour and dimensions c. But Scotus proceeds 3. That understanding of the words of institution that the substance of bread is not there seems harder to be maintained and to it more inconveniences are consequent than by putting the substance of bread to be there 4. Lastly It is a wonder why in one Article which is not a principal Article of faith such a sence should be affirmed for which faith is exposed to the contempt of all that follow reason and all this is because iâ— Transubstantiation there are many natural and ordinary impossibilities In hâ—c conversione sunt plura difficiliora quà m in creatione said Aquinas There are more difficulties in this conversion of the Sacrament than in the whole Creation 9. But then because we are speaking concerning what may be done by God it ought to be considered that it is rash and impudent to say that the body of Christ cannot by the power of God who can do all things be really in the Sacrament without the natural conversion of bread into him God can make that the body of Christ should be de novo in the Sacrament of the Altar without any change of it self and without the change of any thing into it self yet some change being made about the bread or something else They are the words of Durand Cannot God in any sence make this proposition true This bread is the body of Christ or this is bread and Christs body too If they say he cannot then it is a clear case who it is that denies Gods omnipotency If God can then how will they be able from the words of Scripture to prove Transubstantiation This also would be considered 10. But now concerning impossibilities if it absolutely can be evinc'd that this doctrine of Transubstantiation does affirm contradictions then it is not only an intolerable prejudice against the doctrine as is the ordinary and natural impossibility but it will be absolutely impossible to be true and it derogates from God to affirm such a proposition in religion and much more to adopt it into the body of faith And therefore when S. Paul had quoted that place of Scripture He hath put all things under him he adds It is evident that he is excepted who did put all things under him for if this had not been so understood then he should have been under himself and he
own Turrecremata It remains that it must be repletivè in many places which we use to attribute to God only and it is that manner of being in a place by which God is distinguished from his creatures But now a fourth word must be invented and that is Sacramentalitèr Christs body is Sacramentally in more places than one which is very true that is the Sacrament of Christs body is and so is his body figuratively tropically representatively in being and really in effect and blessing But this is not a natural real being in a place but a relation to a person the other three are all the manners of location which the soul of Man could yet ever apprehend 18. Fifthly It is essential to a body to have partem extra partem one part without the other answering to the parts of his place for so the eyes stand separate from the hands and the ears from the feet and the head from the belly But in Transubstantiation the whole body is in a point in a minimum naturale in the least imaginable crumb of consecrated bread how then shall nose and eyes and head and hands be distinct unless the mutiny of the members be reconciled and all parties pleased because the feet shall be the eyes and the leg shall be the head and possess each others dimension and proper cells of dwelling Quod ego non credo said an ancient Gloss. I will not insist upon the unworthy questions which this carnal doctrine introduces viz. Whether Christs whole body be so there that the prepuce is not wanting Suarez supposing that as probable others denying it but disputing it fiercely Neither will I make scrutiny concerning eating Christs bones guts hair and nails nor suppose the Roman Priests to be such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to have such saws in their mouths these are appendages of their perswasion but to be abominated by all Christian and modest persons who use to eat not the bodies but the flesh of beasts and not to devour but to worship the body of Christ in the exaltation and more in the union with his Divinity But that which I now insist upon is that in a body there cannot be indistinction of parts but each must possess his own portion of place and if it does not a body cannot be a body nor distinguished from a Spirit 19. Sixthly When a body broken into half one half is separate from another and remains divided But in the doctrine of Transubstantiation the wafer which they say is Christs whole body if it be broken is broken into two whole ones not into the halfs of one and so there shall be two bodies if each half make one and yet those two bodies are but one and not two Adde to this if each wafer be Christ's body whole and the fraction of it makes that every part is whole Christ then every communicant can consecrate as well as the Priest for at his breaking the host in his mouth why the body should not also become whole to each part in the mouth as well as to each part in the hand is one of the unintelligible secrets of this mystery 20. Aquinas says that The body of Christ is not in the Sacrament in the manner of a body but of a substance and so is whole in the whole Well suppose that for a while yet 1. Those substances which are whole in the whole are by his own doctrine neither divisible nor multiplicable and how then can Christs body be supposed to be multiplicable for there are no other words to express my meaning though no words can speak sence according to their doctrine words not signifying here as every where else and among them as they did always in all mankind how can it I say be multiplied by the breaking of the wafer or bread upon the account of the likeness of it to a substance that cannot be broken or if it could yet were not multipliable But 2. If Christs body be there according to the manner of a substance not of a body I demand according to the nature of what substance whether of a material or an immaterial If according to the nature of a material substance then it is commensurate by the dimensions of quantity which he is now endeavouring to avoid If according to the nature of an immaterial substance then it is not a body but a Spirit or else the body may have the being of a Spirit whilest it remains a body that is be a body and not a body at the same time But 3. To say that a body is there not according to the nature of a body but of a substance is not sence for besides that by this answer it is a body without the nature of a body it says that it is also there determin'd by a manner and yet that manner is so far from determining it that it makes it yet more undetermin'd and general than it was For Substance is the highest Genus in that Category and corpus or body is under it and made more special by a superadded difference To say therefore that a body is there after the manner of a substance is to say that by being specificated limited and determin'd it becomes not a Species but a Genus that is more unlimited by limitations more generical by his specification more universal by being made more particular For impossible is it for wise men to make sence of this business 3. But besides all this to be in a place after the manner of a substance is not to be in a place at all for substantia hath in it no relation to a place till it be specificated to a Body or a Spirit For substantia dicit solùm formalitatem substandi accidentibus subsistendi per se but the capacity of or relation to a place is by the specification of it by some substantial difference 4. Lastly to explicate the being in a place in the manner of a substance by being whole in the whole and whole in every part is to say that every substance is so which is notoriously false for corporal substances are not so whether spiritual be is a question not proper for this place 21. Aquinas hath yet another device to make all whole saying that one body cannot be in diverse places localitèr but Sacramentalitèr not locally but Sacramentally But first I wish the words were sence and that I could tell the meaning of being in a place locally and not locally unless a thing can be in a place and not in a place that is so to be in that it is also out But so long as it is a distinction it is no matter it will amuse and make way to escape if it will do nothing else But if by being Sacramentally in many places is meant figuratively as before I explicated it then I grant Aquinas's affirmative Christs body is in many places Sacramentally that is it is represented upon all the holy Tables or
or lump neque id fide solùm sed reipsâ and in very deed makes us to be his body So Pope Leo. In mysticâ distributione Spiritualis alimoniae hoc impertitur sumitur ut accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi in carnem ipsius qui caro nostra factus est transeamus And in his 24 Sermon of the Passion Non alia igitur participatio corporis quà m ut in id quod sumimus transeamus There is no other participation of the body than that we should pass into that which we receive In the mystical distribution of the Spiritual nourishment this is given and taken that we receiving the vertue of the heavenly food may pass into his flesh who became our flesh And Rabanus makes the analogie fit to this question Sicut illud in nos convertitur dum id manducamus bibimus sic nos in corpus Christi convertimur dum obedienter piè vivimus As that Christs body is converted into us while we eat it and drink it so are we converted into the body of Christ while we live obediently and piously So Gregory Nyssen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The immortal body being in the receiver changes him wholly into his own nature and Theophylact useth the same word He that eateth me liveth by me whilst he is in a certain manner mingled with me is transelementated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or changed into me Now let men of all sides do reason and let one expound the other and it will easily be granted that as we are turned into Christ body so is that into us and so is the bread into that 12. Twelfthly Whatsoever the Fathers speak of this they affirm the same also of the other Sacrament and of the Sacramentals or rituals of the Church It is a known similitude used by S. Cyril of Alexandria As the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the holy Ghost is no longer common bread but it is the body of Christ so this holy unguent is no longer meer and common oyntment but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grace of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it uses to be mistaken the Chrisme for the Grace or gift of Christ and yet this is not spoken properly as is apparent but it is in this as in the Eucharist so says the comparison Thus S. Chrysostome says that the Table or Altar is as the manger in which Christ was laid that the Priest is a Seraphim and his hands are the tongs taking the coal from the Altar But that which I instance in is that 1. They say that they that hear the word of Christ eat the flesh of Christ of which I have already given account in Sect. 3. num 10. c. As hearing is eating as the word is his flesh so is the bread after consecration in a Spiritual sence 2. That which comes most fully home to this is their affirmative concerning Baptism to the same purposes and in many of the same expressions which they use in this other Sacrament S. Ambrose speaking of the baptismal waters affirms naturam mutari per benedictionem the nature of them is changed by blessing and S. Cyril of Alexandria saith By the operation of the holy Spirit the waters are reformed to a divine nature by which the baptized cleanse their body For in these the ground of all their great expressions is that which S. Ambrose expressed in these words Non agnosco usum naturae nullus est hic naturae ordo ubi est excellentia gratiae Where grace is the chief ingredient there the use and the order of nature is not at all considered But this whole mystery is most clear in S. Austin affirming That we are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ when in Baptism we are made members of Christ and are not estranged from the fellowship of that bread and chalice although we die before we eat that bread and drink that cup. Tingimur in passione Domini We are baptized into the passion of our Lord says Tertullian into the death of Christ saith S. Paul for by both Sacraments we shew the Lords death 13. Thirteenthly Upon the account of these premises we may be secur'd against all the objections or the greatest part of those testimonies from antiquity which are pretended for Transubstantiation for either they speak that which we acknowledg or that it is Christs body that it is not common bread that it is a divine thing that we eat Christs flesh that we drink his blood and the like all which we acknowledge and explicate as we do the words of institution or else they speak more than both sides allow to be literally true or speak as great things of other mysteries which must not cannot be expounded literally that is they speak more or less or diverse from them or the same with us and I think there is hardly one testimony in Bellarmine in Coccius and Perron that is pertinent to this question but may be made invalid by one or more of the former considerations But of those if there be any of which there may be a material doubt beyond the cure of these observations I shall give particular account in the sequel 14. But then for the testimonies which I shall alledge against the Roman doctrine in this article they will not be so easily avoided 1. Because many of them are not only affirmative in the Spiritual sence but exclusive of the natural and proper 2. Because it is easie to suppose they may speak hyperboles but never that which would undervalue the blessed Sacrament for an hyperbole is usual not a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the lessening a mystery that may be true this never that may be capable of fair interpretations this can admit of none that may breed reverence this contempt To which I add this that the heathens slandering the Christians to be worshippers of Ceres or Liber because of the holy bread and chalice as appears in S. Austins 20 book and 13 chapter against Faustus the Manichee had reason to advance the reputation of Sacramental signs to be above common bread and wine not only so to explicate the truth of the mystery but to stop the mouth of their calumny and therefore for higher expressions there might be cause but not such cause for any lower than the severest truth and yet let me observe this by the way S. Austin answered only thus We are far from doing so Quamvis panis calicis Sacramentum ritu nostro amplectamur S. Austin might have further removed the calumny if he had been of the Roman perswasion who adore not the bread no◠eat it at all in their Synaxes until it be no bread but changed into the body of our Lord. But he knew nothing of that Neither was there ever any scandal of Christians upon any mistake that could be a probable excuse for them to lessen their expressions in the matter Eucharistical
Christ is the blood of Christ so the Sacrament of faith is Now suppose a stranger to the tricks of the Roman Doctors a wise and a discerning man should read these words in S. Austin and weigh them diligently and compare them with all the adjacent words and circumstances of the place I would desire reasonably to be answered on which side he would conclude S. Austin to be if in any other place he speaks words contrary that is his fault or forgetfulness but if the contrary had been the doctrine of the Church he could never have so forgotten his Religion and Communion as so openly to have declared a contrary sence to the same Article Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis c. You are not to eat this body which you see so he brings in Christ speaking to his disciples or to drink that blood which my crucifiers shall pour forth I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you and Christ brought them to a banquet in which he commended to his disciples the figure of his body and blood * For he did not doubt to say This is my body when he gave the sign of his body * Quod ab omnibus sacrificium appellatur c. That which by all men is called a sacrifice is the sign of the true sacrifice in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrances But concerning S. Austins doctrine I shall refer him that desires to be further satisfied to no other record than their own Canon Law Which not only from S. Austin but from divers others produces testimonies so many so pertinent so full for our doctrine and against the dream of Transubstantiation that it is to me a wonder why it is not clapped into the Indices expurgatorii for it speaks very many truths beyond the cure of their Glosses which they have changed and altered several times But that this matter concerning S. Austin may be yet clearer his own third book de doctrinâ Christianâ is so plain for us in this question that when Frudegardus in the time of Charles the Bald had upon occasion of the dispute which then began to be hot and interested in this question read this book of S. Austin he was changed to the opinion of a Spiritual and mysterious presence and upon occasion of that his being perswaded by S. Austin Paschasius Ratberdus wrote to him as of a question then doubted of by many persons as is to be seen in his Epistle to Frudegardus I end this of S. Austin with those words of his which he intends by way of rule for expounding these and the like words of Scripture taken out of this book of Christian doctrine Locutio praeceptiva c. A preceptive speech forbidding a crime or commanding something good or profitable is not figurative but if it seems to command a crime or forbid a good then it is figurative Vnless ye eat the flesh of the son of man c. seems to command a wickedness it is therefore a figure commanding us to communicate with the passion of our Lord and sweetly and profitably to lay it up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us I shall not need to urge that this holy Sacrament is called Eucharistia carnis sanguinis The Eucharist of the body and blood by Irenaeus Corpus symbolicum typicum by Origen In typo sanguis by S. Jerome similitudo figura typus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 images enigmaes representations expressions exemplars of the Passion by divers others that which I shall note here is this that in the Council of Constantinople it was publickly professed that the Sacrament is not the body of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by nature but by representment for so it is expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy image of it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Eucharistical bread is the true image of the natural flesh and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A figure or image delivered by God of his flesh and a true image of the incarnate dispensation of Christ. These things are found in the third Tome of the Sixth Action of the second Nicene Council where a pert Deacon ignorant and confident had boldly said that none of the Apostles or Fathers had ever called the Sacrament the image of Christs body that they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 antitypes before consecration he grants but after consecration they are called and are and are believed to be the body and blood of Christ properly which I suppose he might have learned of Damascene who in opposition to the Iconoclasts would not endure the word Type or Image to be used concerning the holy Sacrament for they would admit no other image but that he in defiance of them who had excommunicated him for a worshipper of Images and a half Sarazin would admit any Image but that but denied that to be an Image or Type of Christ de fide l. 4. c. 14. For Christ said not This is the Type of my body but it is it But however this new question began to branle the words of Type and Antitype and the manner of speaking began to be changed yet the Article as yet was not changed For the Fathers used the words of Type and Antitype and Image c. to exclude the natural sence of the Sacramental body and Damascene and Anastasius Sinaita and some others of that Age began to refuse those words lest the Sacrament be thought to be nothing of reality nothing but an Image And that this really was the sence of Damascene appears by his words recited in the Acts of the second Council of Nice affirming that the Divine bread is made Christs body by assumption and inhabitation of the Spirit of Christ in the same manner as water is made the laver of regeneration But however they were pleased to speak in the Nicene assembly yet in the Roman Edition of the Councils the Publishers and Collectors were wiser and put on this marginal note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The holy gifts are oftentimes called types and figures even after consecration particularly by Gregory Nazianzen and S. Cyril of Hierusalem I remember only one thing objected to this testimony of so many Bishops that they were Iconoclasts or breakers of images and therefore not to be trusted in any other Article So Bellarmine as I remember But this is just as if I should say that I ought to refuse the Lateran Council because they were worshippers of Images or defenders of Purgatory Surely if I should I had much more reason to refuse their sentence than there is that the Greeks should be rejected upon so slight a pretence nay for doing that which for ought appears was in all their circumstances their duty in a high
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
opinor aut quam rarissimum de purgatorio sermonem inveniet Sed neque Latini simul omnes at sensim hujus rei veritatem conceperunt He that pleases let him read the Commentaries of the Old Greeks and as I suppose he shall find none or very rare mention or speech of Purgatory But neither did all the Latins at one time but by little and little conceive the truth of this thing And again Aliquandin incognitum fuit serò cognitum Vniversae Ecclesiae Deinde quibusdam pedetentim partim ex Scripturis partim ex revelationibus creditum fuit For somewhile it was unknown it was but lately known to the Catholick Church Then it was believ'd by some by little and little partly from Scripture partly from revelations And this is the goodly ground of the doctrine of Purgatory founded no question upon tradition Apostolical delivered some hundreds of years indeed after they were dead but the truth is because it was forgotten by the Apostles and they having so many things in their heads when they were alive wrote and said nothing of it therefore they took care to send some from the dead who by new revelations should teach this old doctrine This we may conjecture to be the equivalent sence of the plain words of Roffensis But the plain words are sufficient without a Commentary Now for Polydore Virgil his own words can best tell what he says The words I have put into the Margent because they are many the sence of them is this 1. He finds no use of Indulgences before the stations of S. Gregory the consequent of that is that all the Latin Fathers did not receive them before S. Gregorie's time and therefore they did not receive them all together 2. The matter being so obscure Polydore chose to express his sence in the testimony of Roffensis 3. From him he affirms that the use of Indulgences is but new and lately received amongst Christians 4. That there is no certainty concerning their original 5. They report that amongst the Ancient Latins there was some use of them But it is but a report for he knows nothing of it before S. Gregorie's time and for that also he hath but a mere report 6. Amongst the Greeks it is not to this day believ'd 7. As long as there was no care of Purgatory no man look'd after Indulgences because if you take away Purgatory there is no need of Indulgences 8. That the use of Indulgences began after men had a while trembled at the torments of Purgatory This if I understand Latin or common sence is the doctrine of Polydore Virgil and to him I add also the testimony of Alphonsus à Castro De Purgatorio fere nulla mentio potissimum apud Graecos scriptores Qua de causa usque hodiernum diem purgatorium non est à Graecis creditum The consequent of these things is this If Purgatory was not known to the Primitive Church if it was but lately known to the Catholick Church if the Fathers seldom or never make mention of it If in the Greek Church especially there was so great silence of it that to this very day it is not believed amongst the Greeks then this Doctrine was not an Apostolical Doctrine not Primitive nor Catholick but an Innovation and of yesterday And this is of it self besides all these confessions of their own parties a suspicious matter because the Church of Rome does establish their Doctrine of Purgatory upon the Ancient use of the Church of praying for the dead But this consequence of theirs is wholly vain because all the Fathers did pray for the dead yet they never prayed for their deliverance out of Purgatory nor ever meant it To this it is thus objected It is confessed that they prayed for them that God would shew them a mercy Now Mark well If they be in Heaven they have a mercy the sentence is given for Eternal happiness If in Hell they are wholly destitute of mercy unless there be a third place where mercy can be shewed them I have according to my order mark'd it well but find nothing in it to purpose For though the Fathers prayed for the souls departed that God would shew them mercy yet it was that God would shew them mercy in the day of judgment In that formidable and dreadful day then there is need of much mercy unto us saith Saint Chrysostom And methinks this Gentleman should not have made use of so pitiful an Argument and would not if he had consider'd that Saint Paul prayed for Onesiphorus That God would shew him a mercy in that day that is in the day of Judgment as generally Interpreters Ancient and Modern do understand it and particularly Saint Chrysostom now cited The faithful departed are in the hands of Christ as soon as they die and they are very well and the souls of the wicked are where it pleases God to appoint them to be tormented by a fearful expectation of the revelation of the day of judgment but Heaven and Hell are reserved till the day of judgment and the Devils themselves are reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day saith Saint Jude and in that day they shall be sentenc'd and so shall all the wicked to everlasting fire which as yet is but prepar'd for the Devil and his Angels for ever But is there no mercy to be shewed to them unless they be in Purgatory Some of the Ancients speak of visitation of Angels to be imparted to the souls departed and the hastening of the day of judgment is a mercy and the avenging of the Martyrs upon their Adversaries is a mercy for which the Souls under the Altar pray saith Saint John in the Revelation and the Greek Fathers speak of a fiery trial at the day of judgment through which every one must pass and there will be great need of mercy And after all this there is a remission of sins proper to this world when God so pardons that he gives the grace of repentance that he takes his judgments off from us that he gives us his holy Spirit to mortifie our sins that he admits us to work in his Laboratory that he sustains us by his power and promotes us by his Grace and stands by us favourably while we work out our salvation with fear and trembling and at last he crowns us with perseverance But at the day of Judgment there shall be a pardon of sins that will crown this pardon when God shall pronounce us pardon'd before all the world and when Christ shall actually and presentially rescue us from all the pains which our sins have deserved even from everlasting pain And that 's the final pardon for which till it be accomplished all the faithful do night and day pray incessantly although to many for whom they do pray they friendly believe that it is now certain that they shall then be glorified Saepissime petuntur illa quae
and before the day of Judgment any souls are translated into a state of bliss out of a state of pain that is that from Purgatory they go to heaven before the day of Judgment He that can shew this will teach me what I have not yet learned but he that cannot shew it must not pretend that the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory was ever known to the Ancient Fathers of the Church SECT III. Of Transubstantiation THE purpose of the Dissuasive was to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be new neither Catholick nor Apostolick In order to which I thought nothing more likely to perswade or dissuade than the testimonies of the parties against themselves And although I have many other inducements as will appear in the sequel yet by so earnestly contending to invalidate the truth of the quotations the Adversaries do confess by implication if these sayings be as is pretended then I have evinc'd my main point viz. that the Roman doctrines as differing from us are novelties and no parts of the Catholick faith Thus therefore the Author of the letter begins He quotes Scotus as declaring the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible which he saith not To the same purpose he quotes Ocham but I can find no such thing in him To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis but he hath no such thing But in order to the verification of what I said I desire it be first observ'd what I did say for I did not deliver it so crudely as this Gentleman sets it down For 1. These words the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible are not the words of all them before nam'd they are the sence of them all but the words but of one or two of them 2. When I say that some of the Roman Writers say that Transubstantiation is not express'd in the Scripture I mean and so I said plainly as without the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of it Now then for the quotations themselves I hope I shall give a fair account 1. The words quoted are the words of Biel when he had first affirmed that Christs body is contained truly under the bread and that it is taken by the faithful all which we believe and teach in the Church of England he adds Tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum that is the way of Transubstantiation an sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi 〈◊〉 pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canâ—ne Biblii and that 's the way of Consubstantiation so that here is expresly taught what I affirm'd was taught that the Scriptures did not express the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and he adds that concerning this there were Anciently divers opinions Thus far the quotation is right But of this man there is no notice taken But what of Scotus He saith no such thing well suppose that yet I hope this Gentleman will excuse me for Bellarmines sake who says the same thing of Scotus as I do and he might have found it in the Margent against the quotation of Scotus if he had pleas'd His words are these Secondly he saith viz. Scotus that there is not extant any place of Scripture so express without the declaration of the Church that it can compel us to admit of Transubstantiation And this is not altogether improbable For though the Scriptures which we brought above seem so clear to us that it may compel a man that is not wilful yet whether it be so or no it may worthily be doubted since most learned and acute men such as Scotus eminently was believe the contrary Well! But the Gentleman can find no such thing in Ocham I hope he did not look far for Ocham is not the man I mean however the Printer might have mistaken but it is easily pardonable because from O. Cam. meaning Odo Cameracensis it was easie for the Printer or transcriber to write Ocam as being of more publick name But the Bishop of Cambray is the man that followed Scotus in this opinion and is acknowledged by Bellarmine to have said the same that Scotus did he being one of his docti acutissimi viri there mentioned Now if Roffensis have the same thing too this Author of the Letter will have cause enough to be a little ashamed And for this I shall bring his words speaking of the whole institution of the Blessed Sacrament by our blessed Saviour he says Neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fierâ— carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam I suppose I need to say no more to verifie these citations but yet I have another very good witness to prove that I have said true and that is Salmeron who says that Scotus out of Innocentius reckons three opinions not of hereticks but of such men who all agreed in that which is the main but he adds Some men and writers believe that this article cannot be proved against a heretick by Scripture alone or reasons alone And so Cajetan is affirm'd by Suarez and Alanus to have said and Melchior Canus perpetuam Mariae virginitatem conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi non ita expressa in libris Canonicis invenies sed adeo tamen certa in â—ide sunt ut contrariorum dogmatum authores Ecclesia haereticos judicarit So that the Scripture is given up for no sure friend in this Q. the Article wholly relies upon the authority of the Church viz. of Rome who makes faith and makes heresies as she please But to the same purpose is that also which Chedzy said in his disputation at Oxford In what manner Christ is there whether with the bread Transelemented or Transubstantiation the Scripture in open words tells not But I am not likely so to escape for E. W. talks of a famous or rather infamous quotation out of Peter Lombard and adds foul and uncivil words which I pass by but the thing is this that I said Petrus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no. I did say so and I brought the very words of Lombard to prove it and these very words E. W. himself acknowledges Si autem quaeritur qualis sit ista conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio I am not able to define or determine whether that change be formal or substantial So far E. W. quotes him but leaves out one thing very material viz. whether besides formal or substantial it be of another kind Now E. W. not being able to deny that Lombard said this takes a great deal of useless pains not one word of all that he says being to the purpose or able to make it probable that Peter Lombard did not say so or that he did not think so
did give veneration and worship to the Image even of the cross it self but no words of S. Cyril were quoted for the denial is not in express words but in plain and direct argument for being by Julian charg'd with worshipping the cross S. Cyril in behalf of the Christians takes notice of their using the cross in a religious memory of all good things to which by the cross of Christ we are ingag'd that is he owns all that they did and therefore taking no notice of any thing of worship and making no answer to that part of the objection it is certain that the Christians did not do it or that he could not justifie them in so doing But because I quoted no words of S. Cyril I now shall take notice of some words of his which do most abundantly clear this particular by a general rule Only the Divine Nature is capable of adoration and the Scripture hath given adoration to no nature but to that of God alone that and that alone ought to be worshipped But to give yet a little more light to this particular it may be noted that before S. Cyrils time this had been objected by the Pagans particularly by Caecilius to which Minutius answers by directly denying it and saying that the Pagans did rather worship crosses that is the woodden parts of their Gods The Christians indeed were by Tertullian called Religiosi crucis because they had it in thankful use and memory and us'd it frequently in a symbolical confession of their not being asham'd but of their glorying in the real cross of Christ But they never worshipped the material cross or the figure of it as appears by S. Cyrils owning all the objections excepting this only of which he neither confessed the fact nor offered any justification of it when it was objected but professed a doctrine with which such practice was inconsistent And the like is to be said of some other of the Fathers who speak with great affections and veneration of the cross meaning to exalt the passion of Christ and in the sence of S. Paul to glory in the cross of Christ not meaning the material cross much less the image of it which we blame in the Church of Rome And this very sence we have expressed in S. Ambrose Sapiens Helena egit quae crucem in capite regum levavit ut Christi Crux in Regibus adoretur The figure of the material cross was by Helena plac'd upon the heads of Kings that the cross of Christ in Kings might be ador'd How so He answers Non insolentia ista sed pietas est cum defertur sacrae redemptioni It is to the holy redemption not to the cross materially taken this were insolent but the other is piety In the same manner also S. Chrysostom is by the Roman Doctors and particularly by Gretser and E. W. urg'd for the worshipping Christs cross But the book de cruce latrone whence the words are cited Gretser and Possevine suspect it to be a spurious issue of some unknown person It wants a Father and sometimes it goes to S. Austin and is crouded into his Sermons de Tempore But I shall not trouble my discourse any farther with such counterfeit ware What S. Chrysostoms doctrine was in the matter of Images is plain enough in his indubitate works as is and shall be remark'd in their several places The famous testimony of Epiphanius against the very use of Images in Churches being urg'd in the Disswasive as an irrefragable argument that the Roman doctrine is not Primitive or Catholick the contra-scribers say nothing but that when S. Hierom translated that Epistle of S. Epiphanius it appears not that this story was in that Epistle that S. Hierom translated which is a great argument that that story was foisted into that Epistle after S. Hieroms time A likely matter but spoken upon slight grounds It appears not saith the Objector that this story was in it then To whom does it not appear To Bellarmine indeed it did not nor to this Objector who writes after him Alan Cope denied that Epiphanius ever wrote any such Epistle at all or that S. Hierom ever translated any such but Bellarmine being asham'd of such unreasonable boldness found out this more gentle answer which here we have from our Objector well but now the case is thus that this story was put into the Epistle by some Iconoclast is vehemently suspected by Bellarmine and Baronius But this Epistle vehemently burns their fingers and the live-coal sticks close to them and they can never shake it off For 1. who should add this story to this Epistle not any of the reformed Doctors for before Luthers time many ages this Epistle with this story was known and confessed and quoted in the Manuscript copies of divers Nations 2. This Epistle was quoted and set down as now it is with this story by Charles the great above DCCC years ago 3. And a little after by the Fathers in the Council of Paris only they call the Author John Bishop of C. P. instead of Jerusalem 4. Sirmondus the Jesuit cites this Epistle as the genuine work of Epiphanius 5. Marianus Victor and Dionysius Petavius a Jesuit of great and deserved same for learning in their Editions of Epiphanius have published this whole Epistle and have made no note given no censure upon this story 6. Before them Thomas Waldensis and since him Alphonsus à Castro acknowledge this whole Epistle as the proper issue of Epiphanius 7. Who can be suppos'd to have put in this story The Iconoclasts Not the Greeks because if they had they would have made use of it for their advantage which they never did in any of their disputations against images insomuch that Bellarmine makes advantage of it because they never objected it Not the Latins that wrote against images for though they were against the worship of images yet they were not Iconoclasts Indeed Claudius Taurinensis was but he could not put this story in for before his time it was in as appears in the book of Charles the great before quoted These things put together are more than sufficient to prove that this story was written by Epiphanius and the whole Epistle was translated by S. Hierome as himself testifies But after all this if there was any foul play in this whole affair the cosenage lies on the other side for some or other have destroyed the Greek original of Epiphanius and only the Latin copies remain and in all of them of Epiphanius's works this story still remains But how the Greek came to be lost though it be uncertain yet we have great cause to suspect the Greeks to be the Authors of the loss And the cause of this suspicion is the command made by the Bishops in the seventh Council that all writings against images should be brought in to the Bishop of C. P. there to be laid up with the books of
their Religion or their Churches But now since these periods it is plain that the case is altered and when the learned Christians of the Roman communion write against the Jews they are forced to make apologies for the scandal they give to the Jews in their worshipping of images as is to be seen besides Leontius Neopolitanus of Cyprus his apology which he published for the Christians against the Jews in Ludovicus Carretus his Epistle in Sepher Amana and Fabianus Fioghus his Catechetical Dialogues But I suppose this case is very plain and is a great conviction of the innovation in this matter made by the Church of Rome 5. The matter of worshipping images looks so ill so like Idolatry so like the forbidden practices of the Heathens that it was infinitely reasonable that if it were the practice and doctrine of the Primitive Church the Primitive Priests and Bishops should at least have considered and stated the question how far and in what sence it was lawful and with what intention and in what degrees and with what caution and distinctions this might lawfully be done particularly when they preach'd and wrote Commentaries and explications upon the Decalogue especially since there was at least so great a semblance of opposition and contradiction between the commandment and any such practice God forbidding any image and similitude to be made of himself or any thing else in Heaven or in Earth or in the Sea and that with such threatnings and interminations of his severe judgments against them that did make them for worship and this thing being so constantly objected by all those many that opposed their admission and veneration it is certainly very strange that none of the Fathers should take notice of any difficulty in this affair They objected the Commandment against the Heathens for doing it and yet that they should make no account nor take notice how their worshipping Saints and God himself by images should differ from the Heathen superstition that was the same thing to look upon This indeed is very Unlikely But so it is Justin Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus speak plainly enough of this matter and speak plain down-right words against making and worshipping images and so careless they were of any future chance or the present concern of the Roman Church that they do not except the image of the true God nor the image of Saints and Angels no not of Christ or the Blessed Virgin Mary her self Nay Origen expounds the Commandments and S. Austin makes a professed commentary upon them but touch'd none of these things with the top of his finger only told that they were all forbidden we are not so careless now adays in the Church of Rome but carefully expound the Commandments against the unsufferable objections of the Hereticks of late and the Prophets and the Fathers of old But yet for all this a suspicious man would conclude that in the first 400. years there was no need of any such explications inasmuch as they had nothing to do with images which only could make any such need 6. But then in the next place I consider that the second Commandment is so plain so easie so peremptory against all the making and worshipping any image or likeness of any thing that besides that every man naturally would understand all such to be forbidden it is so expressed that upon supposition that God did intend to forbid it wholly it could not more plainly have been expressed For the prohibition is absolute and universal and therefore of all particulars and there is no word or sign by the vertue of which it can with any probability be pretended that any one of any kind is excepted Now then to this when the Church of Rome pretends to answer they over-do it and make the matter the more suspicious Some of them answer by saying that this is no moral Commandment not obligatory to Christians but to the Jews only Others say that by this Commandment it is only forbidden to account an image to be very God so Cajetan Others say that an idol only is forbidden and that an image is no idol Others yet distinguish the manner of worshipping saying that the image is worshipp'd for the Samplers sake not for its own And this worship is by some called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or service by others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying that the first is to images of Saints the other to God only And yet with this difference Some saying that the image of God is ador'd with the same kind of adoration that God is only it is to the image for Gods sake so S. Thomas of Aquine and generally his scholars Others say that it is a religious kind of Worship due to Images but not at all Divine some say it is but a civil worship And then it is for the image sake and so far is intransitive but whatever is paid more to the image is transitive and passes further And whatsoever it be it cannot be agreed how it ought to be paid whether properly or improperly Vnivocally or aequivocally for themselves or for something else whether analogically or simply whether absolutely or by reduction And it is remarkable what Bellarmine answers to the Question with what kind of worship images may be ador'd He answers with this proposition The worship which by it self and properly is due to images is a certain imperfect worship which analogically and reductively pertains to a kind of that worship which is due to the Exemplar and a little after to the images a certain inferiour worship is due and that not all one but various according to the variety of images To the images of Saints is due dulia secundum quid which if you do not understand Bellarmine in the next words explains most clearly dulia secundum quid is as a man may say reductive and analogical But after all this we may be mistaken and we cannot tell whom to follow nor what to do in the case Thomas and his Scholars warrant you to give the same worship to Gods image as to God And is the easiest way indeed to be understood and indeed may quickly be understood to be direct idolatry Bellarmine and others tell you stay not so altogether but there is a way to agree with S. Thomas that it shall be the same worship and not the same worship for it is the same by reduction that is it is of the same kind and therefore Divine but it is imperfectly divine as if there could be degrees in Divine worship that is as if any worship could be divine and yet not the greatest But if this seems difficult Bellarmine illustrates it by similitudes This worship of images is the same with the worship of the Example viz. of God or of Christ as it happens just as a painted man is the same with a living man and a painted horse with a living horse for a painted man and a painted horse differ specifically as the true man and the
true horse do and yet the painted man is no man and the painted horse is no horse The effect of which discourse is this that the worship of images is but the image of worship hypocrisie and dissimulation all the way nothing real but imaginative and phantastical and indeed though this gives but a very ill account of the agreement of Bellarmine with their Saints Thomas and Bonaventure yet it is the best way to avoid idolatry because they give no real worship to images But then on the other side how do they mock God and Christ by offering to them that which is nothing by pretending to honour them by honouring their images when the honour they do give to images is it self but imaginary and no more of reality in it than there is of humane Nature in the picture of a man However if you will not commit down-right idolatry as some of their Saints teach you then you must be careful to observe these plain distinctions and first be sure to remember that when you worship an image you do it not materially but formally not as it is of such a substance but as it is a sign next take care that you observe what sort of image it is and then proportion your right kind to it that you do not give latria to that where hyperdulia is only due and be careful that if dulia only be due that your worship be not hyperdulical In the next place consider that the worship to your image is intransitive but in few cases and according but to a few Doctors and therefore when you have got all these cases together be sure that in all other cases it be transitive But then when the worship is pass'd on to the Exemplar you must consider that if it be of the same kind with that which is due to the Example yet it must be an imperfect piece of worship though the kind be perfect and that it is but analogical and it is reductive and it is not absolute not simple not by it self not by an act to the image distinct from that which is to the Example but one and the same individual act with one intention as to the supreme kind though with some little variety if the kinds be differing Now by these easie ready clear and necessary distinctions and rules and cases the people being fully and perfectly instructed there is no possibility that the worship of images should be against the second Commandment because the Commandment does not forbid any worship that is transitive reduct accidental consequential analogical and hyperdulical and this is all that the Church of Rome does by her wisest doctors teach now a days But now after all this the easiest way of all certainly is to worship no images and no manner of way and trouble the peoples heads with no distinction for by these no man can ever be at peace or Understand the Commandment which without these laborious devices by which they confess the guilt of the Commandment does lie a little too heavy upon them would most easily by every man and every woman be plainly and properly understood And therefore I know not whether there be more impiety or more fearful caution in the Church of Rome in being so curious that the second Commandment be not expos'd to the eyes and ears of the people leaving it out of their manuals breviaries and Catechisms as if when they teach the people to serve God they had a mind they should not be tempted to keep all the Commandments And when at any time they do set it down they only say thus Non facies tibi Idolum which is a word not us'd in the second Commandment at all and if the word which is there us'd be sometimes translated Idolum yet it means no more than similitude or if the words be of distinct signification yet because both are expresly forbidden in that Commandment it is very ill to represent the Commandment so as if it were observ'd according to the intention of that word yet the Commandment might be broken by the not observing it according to the intention of the other word which they conceal But of this more by and by 7. I consider that there is very great scandal and offence given to Enemies and strangers to Christianity the very Turks and Jews with whom the worship of Images is of very ill report and that upon at least the most probable grounds in the world Now the Apostle having commanded all Christians to pursue those things which are of good report and to walk circumspectly and charitably towards them that are without and that we give no offence neither to the Jew nor to the Gentile Now if we consider that if the Christian Church were wholly without Images there would nothing perish to the faith or to the charity of the Church or to any grace which is in order to Heaven and that the spiritual state of the Christian Church may as well want such Baby-ceremonies as the Synagogue did and yet on the other side that the Jews and Turks are the more much more estranged from the religion of Christ Jesus by the Image-worship done by his pretended servants the consequent will be that to retain the worship of Images is both against the faith and the charity of Christians and puts limits and retrenches the borders of the Christian pale 8. It is also very scandalous to Christians that is it makes many and endangers more to fall into the direct sin of idolatry Polydore Virgil observes out of S. Jerome that almost all the holy Fathers damned the worship of Images for this very reason for fear of idolatry and Cassander says that all the ancients did abhor all adoration of Images and he cites Origen as an instance great enough to verifie the whole affirmative Nos vero ideo non honoramus simulachra quia quantum possumus cavemus ne quo modo incidamus in eam credulitatem ut his tribuamus divinitatis aliquid This authority E.W. pag. 55. is not ashamed to bring in behalf of himself in this question saying that Origen hath nothing against the use of Images and declares our Christian doctrine thus then he recites the words above quoted than which Origen could not speak plainer against the practice of the Roman Church and E. W. might as well have disputed for the Manichees with this argument The Scripture doth not say that God made the world it only declares the Christian doctrine thus In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth c. But this Gentleman thinks any thing will pass for argument amongst his own people And of this danger S. Austin gives a rational account No man doubts but idols want all sense But when they are plac'd in their seats in an honourable sublimity that they may be attended by them that pray and offer sacrifice by the very likeness of living members and senses although they be senseless and without life
that those who are under our Charges should know the force of the Resurrection of Christ and the conduct of the Spirit and live according to the purity of God and the light of the Gospel To this let us cooperate with all wisdom and earnestness and knowledge and spiritual understanding And there is no better way in the world to do this than by ministring to persons singly in the conduct of their Repentance which as it is the work of every man so there are but few persons who need not the conduct of a spiritual guide in the beginnings and progressions of it To the assistance of this work I have now put my Symbol having by the sad experience of my own miseries and the calamities of others to whose restitution I have been called to minister been taught something of the secret of Souls and I have reason to think that the words of our dearest Lord to S. Peter were also spoken to me Tu autem conversus confirma fratres I hope I have received many of the mercies of a repenting sinner and I have felt the turnings and varieties of spiritual entercourses and I have often observed the advantages in ministring to others and am most confident that the greatest benefits of our office may with best effect be communicated to souls in personal and particular Ministrations In the following book I have given advices and have asserted many truths in order to all this I have endeavoured to break in pieces almost all those propositions upon the confidence of which men have been negligent of severe and strict living I have cancell'd some false grounds upon which many answers in Moral Theologie us'd to be made to inquiries in Cases of Conscience I have according to my weak ability described all the necessities and great inducement of a holy life and have endeavoured to do it so plainly that it may be useful to every man and so inoffensively that it may hurt no man I know but one Objection which I am likely to meet withall excepting those of my infirmity and disability which I cannot answer but by protesting the piety of my purposes but this only that in the Chapter of Original sin I speak otherwise than is spoken commonly in the Church of England whos 's ninth Article affirms that the natural propensity to evil and the perpetual lusting of the flesh against the spirit deserves the anger of God and damnation against which I so earnestly seem to dispute in the sixth Chapter of my Book To this I answer that it is one thing to say a thing in its own nature deserves damnation and another to say it is damnable to all those persons in whom it is subjected The thing it self that is our corrupted nature or our nature of corruption does leave us in the state of separation from God by being unable to bear us to Heaven imperfection of nature can never carry us to the perfections of glory and this I conceive to be all that our Church intends for that in the state of nature we can only fall short of Heaven and be condemn'd to a poena damni is the severest thing that any sober person owns and this I say that Nature alone cannot bring us to God without the regeneration of the Spirit and the grace of God we can never go to Heaven but because this Nature was not spoil'd by Infants but by persons of reason and we are all admitted to a new Covenant of Mercy and Grace made with Adam presently after his fall that is even before we were born as much as we were to a participation of sin before we were born no man can perish actually for that because he is reconcil'd by this He that says every sin is damnable and deserves the anger of God says true but yet some persons that sin of mere infirmity are accounted by God in the rank of innocent persons So it is in this Article Concupiscence remains in the regenerate and yet concupiscence hath the nature of sin but it brings not condemnation These words explain the 〈◊〉 Original imperfection is such a thing as is even in the regenerate and it is of the nature of sin that is it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many but yet it is not daâ—â—ing because as it is subjected in unconsenting persons it loses its own natural venome and relation to guiltiness that is it may of it self in its abstracted nature be a sin and deserve Gods anger viz. in some persons in all them that consent to it but that which will always be in persons that shall never be damned that is in infants and regenerate shall 〈◊〉 damn them And this is the main of what I affirm And since the Church of England intended that Article against the Doctrine of the Pelagians I suppose I shall not be thought to recede from the spirit and sence of the Article though I use differing manners of expression because my way of explicating this question does most of all destroy the Pelagian Heresie since although I am desirous to acquit the dispensation of God and his Justice from my imputation or suspicion of wrong and am loth to put our sins upon the account of another yet I impute all our evils to the imperfections of our nature and the malice of our choice which does most of all demonstrate not only the necessity of Grace but also of Infant Baptism and then to accuse this Doctrine of Pelagianism or any newer name of Heresie will seem like impotency and weakness of spirit but there will be nothing of truth or learning in it And although this Article was penn'd according to the style of the Schools as they then did loâ—e to speak yet the hardest word in it is capable of such a sence as complies with the intendment of that whole sixth Chapter For though the Church of England professes her self fallible and consequently that all her truths may be peaceably improved yet I do think that she is not actually deceiv'd and also that divers eminently learned do consent in my sence of that Article However I am so truly zealous for her honour and peace that I wholly submit all that I say there or any where else to her most prudent judgment And though I may most easily be deceived yet I have given my reasons for what I say and desire to be tried by them not by prejudice and numbers and zeal and if any man resolves to understand the Article in any other sence than what I have now explicated all that I shall say is that it may be I cannot reconcile my Doctrine to his explication it is enough that it is consistent with the Article it self in its best understanding and compliance with the truth it self and the justification of God However he that explicates the Article and thinks it means as he says does all the honour he can to the Authority whose words if he does not understand yet the sanction
over them the cover of good works But Caesarius the Bishop is more punctual and descends to particulars For having given this general rule Illa parva vel quotidiana peccata bonis operibus redimere non desistant Let them not cease to redeem or expiate their daily and small faults with good works he adds But I desire more fully to insinuate to you with what works small sins are taken off So often as we visit the sick go in Charity to them that are in prison reconcile variances keep the fasts of the Church wash the feet of strangers repair to the vigils and watches of the Church give alms to passing beggars forgive our enemies when they ask pardon istis enim operibus his similibus minuta peccata quotidiè redimuntur with these and the like works the minute or smaller sins are daily redeemed or taken off 58. III. There is in prayer a particular efficacy and it is of proper use and application in the case of the more venial and unavoidable sins rather this than any other alone especially being helped by Charity that is alms and forgiveness Because the greatest number of venial sins comes in as I shall afterwards demonstrate upon the stock of ignorance or which is all one imperfect notices and acts of understanding and therefore have not any thing in the natural parts and instances of Repentance so fit to expiate or to cure them But because they are beyond humane cure they are to be cured by the Divine Grace and this is to be obtained by Prayer And this S. Clement advis'd in his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lift up your eyes to God Almighty praying him to be merciful to you if you have unwillingly fallen into errour And to the same purpose are the words of S. Austin Propter levia sine quibus esse non possumus oratio inventa for those lighter sins without which we cannot be Prayer is invented as a remedy 59. IV. Perpetually watch and perpetually resolve against them as against any never indulging to thy self leave to proceed in one Let this care be constant and indefatigable and leave the success to God For in this there is a great difference between Capital or Deadly and the more venial sins For he that repents of great sins does so resolve against them that he ought really to believe that he shall never return to them again No drunkard is truly to be esteem'd a penitent but he that in consideration of himself his purpose his reasons and all his circumstances is by the grace of God confident that he shall never be drunk again The reason is plain For if he thinks that for all his resolution and repentance the case may happen or will return in which he shall be tempted above his strength that is above the efficacy of his resolution then he hath not resolv'd against the sin in all its forms or instances but he hath left some roots of bitterness which may spring up and defile him he hath left some weak places some parts unfortified and does secretly purpose to give up his fort if he be assaulted by some sort of enemies He is not resolved to resist the importunity of a friend or a prevailing person a Prince his Landlord or his Master that for the present he thinks impossible and therefore ows his spiritual life to chance or to the mercies of his enemy who may have it for asking But if he thinks it possible to resist any temptation and resolves to do it if it be possible the natural consequent of that is that he thinks he shall never fall again into it But if beforehand he thinks he shall relapse he is then but an imperfect resolver but a half-fac'd penitent * But this is not so in the case of smaller sins coming by ignorance or surprise by inadvertency and imperfect notices by the unavoidable weakness and imperfect condition of mankind For he who in these resolves the strongest knows that he shall not be innocent but that he shall feel his weakness in the same or in other instances and that this shall be his condition as long as he lives that he shall always need to pray Forgive me my trespasses and even his not knowing concerning all actions and all words and all thoughts whether they be sins or no is a certain betraying him into a necessity of doing something for the pardon of which Christ died for the preventing of which a mighty care is necessary in the suffering of which he ought to be humbled and for the pardon of which he ought for ever to pray And therefore S. Chrysostome upon those words of S. Paul I am conscious in nothing that is I do not know of any failing in my Ministry saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what then he is not hereby justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because some sins might adhere to him he not knowing that they were sins Ab occultis meis munda me Domine was an excellent prayer of David Cleanse me O Lord from my secret faults Hoc dicit nequid fortè per ignorantiam deliquisset saith S. Hierome he prayed so lest peradventure he should have sinned ignorantly But of this I shall give a further account in describing the measures of sins of infirmity For the present although this resolution against all is ineffective as to a perfect immunity from small offences yet it is accepted as really done because it is done as it can possibly 60. V. Let no man relie upon the Catalogues which are sometimes given and think that such things which the Doctors have call'd Venial sins may with more facility be admitted and with smaller portions of care be regarded or with a slighter repentance washed off For besides that some have called perjuries anger envy injurious words by lighter names and titles of a little reproof and having lived in wicked times were betray'd into easier sentences of those sins which they saw all mankind almost to practise which was the case of some of the Doctors who lived in the time of those Warrs which broke the Roman Empire besides this I say venial sins can rather be described than enumerated For none are so in their nature but all that are so are so by accident and according as sins tend to excuse so they put on their degrees of veniality No sin is absolutely venial but in comparison with others Neither is any sin at all times and to all persons alike venial And therefore let no man venture upon it upon any mistaken confidence They that think sins are venial in their own nature cannot agree which are venial and which are not and therefore nothing is in this case so certain as that all that doctrine which does in any sence represent sins as harmless or tame Serpents is infinitely dangerous and there is no safety but by striving against all beforehand and repenting of all as there is need 61. I summ up these questions and these
from the severities of Religion let me live by the measures of thy law not by the evil example and disguises of the world Renew a right spirit within me and cast me not away from thy presence lest I should retire to the works of darkness and enter into those horrible regions where the light of thy countenance never shineth II. I AM ashamed O Lord I am ashamed that I have dishonoured so excellent a Creation Thou didst make us upright and create us in innocence And when thou didst see us unable to stand in thy sight and that we could never endure to be judged by the Covenant of works thou didst renew thy mercies to us in the new Covenant of Jesus Christ and now we have no excuse nothing to plead for our selves much less against thee but thou art holy and pure and just and merciful Make me to be like thee holy as thou art holy merciful as our Heavenly Father is merciful obedient as our holy Saviour Jesus meek and charitable temperate and chaste humble and patient according to that holy example that my sins may be pardoned by his death and my spirit renewed by his Spirit that passing from sin to grace from ignorance to the knowledge and love of God and of his Son Jesus Christ I may pass from death to life from sorrow to joy from Earth to Heaven from the present state of misery and imperfection to the glorious inheritance prepar'd for the Saints and Sons of light the children of the new birth the brethren of our Lord and Brother our Judge and our Advocate our Blessed Saviour and Redeemer JESVS Amen A Prayer to be said by a Matron in behalf of her Husband and Family that a blessing may descend upon their posterity I. O Eternal God our most merciful Lord and gracious Father thou art my guide the light of mine eyes the joy of my heart the author of my hope and the object of my love and worshippings thou relievest all my needs and determin'st all my doubts and art an eternal fountain of blessing open and running over to all thirsty and weary souls that come and cry to thee for mercy and refreshment Have mercy upon thy servant and relieve my fears and sorrows and the great necessities of my family for thou alone O Lord canst do it II. FIT and adorn every one of us with a holy and a religious spirit and give a double portion to thy servant my dear Husband Give him a wise heart a prudent severe and indulgent care over the children which thou hast given us His heart is in thy hand and the events of all things are in thy disposition Make it a great part of his care to promote the spiritual and eternal interest of his children and not to neglect their temporal relations and necessities but to provide states of life for them in which with fair advantages they may live chearfully serve thee diligently promote the interest of the Christian family in all their capacities that they may be always blessed and always innocent devout and pious and may be graciously accepted by thee to pardon and grace and glory through Jesus Christ. Amen III. BLESS O Lord my Sons with excellent understandings love of holy and noble things sweet dispositions innocent deportment diligent souls chaste healthful and temperate bodies holy and religious spirits that they may live to thy glory and be useful in their capacities to the servants of God and all their neighbours and the Relatives of their conversation Bless my Daughters with a humble and a modest carriage and excellent meekness a great love of holy things a severe chastity a constant holy and passionate Religion O my God never suffer them to fall into folly and the sad effects of a wanton loose and indiscreet spirit possess their fancies with holy affections be thou the covering of their eyes and the great object of their hopes and all their desires Blessed Lord thou disposest all things sweetly by thy providence thou guidest them excellently by thy wisdom thou unitest all circumstances and changes wonderfully by thy power and by thy power makest all things work for the good of thy servants Be pleased so to dispose my Daughters that if thou shouldest call them to the state of a married life they may not dishonour their Family nor grieve their Parents nor displease thee but that thou wilt so dispose of their persons and the accidents and circumstances of that state that it may be a state of holiness to the Lord and blessing to thy servants And until thy wisdom shall know it fit to bring things so to pass let them live with all purity spending their time religiously and usefully O most blessed Lord enable their dear father with proportionable abilities and opportunities of doing his duty and charities towards them and them with great obedience and duty toward him and all of us with a love toward thee above all things in the world that our portion may be in love and in thy blessings through Jesus Christ our dearest Lord and most gracious Redeemer IV. O MY God pardon thy servant pity my infirmities hear the passionate desires of thy humble servant in thee alone is my trust my heart and all my wishes are towards thee Thou hast commanded me to pray to thee in all needs thou hast made gracious promises to hear and accept me and I will never leave importuning thy glorious Majesty humbly passionately confidently till thou hast heard and accepted the prayer of thy servant Amen dearest Lord for thy mercy sake hear thy servant Amen TO The Right Reverend Father in God JOHN WARNER D.D. and late Lord Bishop of Rochester MY LORD I NOW see cause to wish that I had given to your Lordship the trouble of reading my papers of Original Sin before their publication for though I have said all that which I found material in the Question yet I perceive that it had been fitting I had spoken some things less material so to prevent the apprehensions that some have of this doctrine that it is of a sence differing from the usual expressions of the Church of England However my Lord since your Lordship is pleased to be careful not only of truth and Gods glory but desirous also that even all of us should speak the same thing and understand each other without Jealousies or severer censures I have now obeyed your Counsel and done all my part towards the asserting the truth and securing charity and unity Professing with all truth and ingenuity that I would rather die than either willingly give occasion or countenance to a Schism in the Church of England and I would suffer much evil before I would displease my dear Brethren in the service of Jesus and in the ministeries of the Church But as I have not given just cause of offence to any so I pray that they may not be offended unjustly lest the fault lie on them whose persons I so much love
as to agree with Scripture and reason and as may best glorifie God and that they require it I will not pretend to believe that those Doctors who first fram'd the Article did all of them mean as I mean I am not sure they did or that they did not but this I am sure that they fram'd the words with much caution and prudence and so as might abstain from grieving the contrary minds of differing men And I find that in the Harmony of confessions printed in Cambridge 1586 and allowed by publick Authority there is no other account given of the English confession in this Article but that every Person is born in sin and leadeth his life in sin and that no body is able truly to say his heart is clean That the most righteous person is but an unprofitable servant That the Law of God is perfect and requireth of us perfect and full obedience that we are able by no means to fulfill that Law in this worldly life that there is no mortal Creature which can be justified by his own deserts in God's sight Now this was taken out of the English Confession inserted in the General Apology written in the year 1562 in the very year the Articles were fram'd I therefore have reason to believe that the excellent men of our Church Bishops and Priests did with more Candor and Moderation opine in this Question and therefore when by the violence and noises of some parties they were forced to declare something they spake warily and so as might be expounded to that Doctrine which in the General Apology was their allowed sence However it is not unusual for Churches in matters of difficulty to frame their Articles so as to serve the ends of peace and yet not to endanger truth or to destroy liberty of improving truth or a further reformation And since there are so very many Questions and Opinions in this point either all the Dissenters must be allowed to reconcile the Article and their Opinion or must refuse her Communion which whosoever shall inforce is a great Schismatick and an Uncharitable Man This only is certain that to tye the Article and our Doctrine together is an excellent art of peace and a certain signification of obedience and yet is a security of truth and that just liberty of Understanding which because it is only God's subject is then sufficiently submitted to Men when we consent in the same form of words The Article is this Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam as the Pelagians do vainly talk 28. THE following of Adam that is the doing as he did is actual sin and in no sence can it be Original sin for that is as vain as if the Pelagians had said the second is the first and it is as impossible that what we do should be Adam's sin as it is unreasonable to say that his should be really and formally our sin Imitation supposes a Copy and those are two termes of a Relation and cannot be coincident as like is not the same But then if we speak of Original sin as we have our share in it yet cannot our imitation of Adam be it possibly it may be an effect of it or a Consequent But therefore Adam's sin did not introduce a necessity of sinning upon us for if it did Original sin would be a fatal curse by which is brought to pass not only that we do but that we cannot choose but follow him and then the following of Adam would be the greatest part of Original sin expresly against the Article 29. But it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every Man The fault vitium Naturae so it is in the Latine Copyes not a sin properly Non talia sunt vitia quae jam peccata dicenda sunt but a disease of the Soul as blindness or crookedness that is it is an imperfection or state of deficiency from the end whither God did design us we cannot with this nature alone go to Heaven for it having been debauch'd by Adam and disrobed of all its extraordinaries and graces whereby it was or might have been made fit for Heaven it is returned to its own state which is perfect in its kind that is in order to all natural purposes but imperfect in order to supernatural whither it was design'd The case is this The eldest Son of Craesus the Lydian was born dumb and by the fault of his Nature was unfit to govern the Kingdom therefore his Father passing him by appointed the Crown to his younger Brother But he in a Battail seeing his Father in danger to be slain in Zeal to save his Fathers life strain'd the ligatures of his tongue till that broke which bound him by returning to his speech he returned to his title We are born thus imperfect unfit to raign with God for ever and can never return to a title to our inheritance till we by the grace of God be redintegrate and made perfect like Adam that is freed from this state of imperfection by supernatural aides and by the grace of God be born again Corruption This word is exegetical of the other and though it ought not to signifie the diminution of the powers of the soul not only because the powers of the soul are not corruptible but because if they were yet Adams sin could not do it since it is impossible that an act proper to a faculty should spoil it of which it is rather perfective and an act of the will can no more spoil the will than an act of understanding can lessen the understanding Yet this word Corruption may mean a spoiling or disrobing our Nature of all its extraordinary investitures that is supernatural gifts and graces a Comparative Corruption so as Moses's face when the light was taken from it or a Diamond which is more glorious by a reflex ray of the Sun when the light was taken off falls into darkness and yet loses nothing of its Nature But Corruption relates to the body not to the soul and in this Article may very properly and aptly be taken in the same sence as it is used by S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. The body is sown in Corruption that is in all the effects of its mortality and this indeed is a part of Original sin or the effect of Adams sin it introduc'd Natural Corruption or the affections of mortality the solemnities of death for indeed this is the greatest parth of Original sin Fault and Corruption mean the Concupiscence and Mortality Of the Nature of every man This gives light to the other and makes it clear it cannot be in us properly a sin for sin is an affection of persons not of the whole Nature for an Universal cannot be the subject of circumstances and particular actions and personal proprieties as humane Nature cannot be said to be drunk or to commit adultery now because sin is an action or omission and it is made up of many particularities it cannot be
and ordinarily and the evil which I hate I do avoid sometimes indeed I am surpris'd and when I do neglect to use the aids and strengths of the spirit of grace I fall but this is because I will not and not because I cannot help it and in this case the man is not a servant or captive of sin but a servant of Christ though weak and imperfect But if it means I do it commonly or constantly or frequently which is certainly the complaint here made then to be a regenerate person is to be a vile person sold under sin and not Gods servant For if any man shall suppose these words to mean only thus I do not do so much good as I would and do sometimes fall into evil though I would fain be intirely innocent indeed this man teaches no false doctrine as to the state or duty of the regenerate which in this life will for ever be imperfect but he speaks not according to the sence and design of the Apostle here For his purpose is to describe that state of evil in which we are by nature and from which we could not be recovered by the law and from which we can only be redeemed by the grace of Jesus Christ and this is a state of death of being killed by sin of being captivated and sold under sin after the manner of slaves as will further appear in the sequel 12. III. Every regenerate man and servant of Christ hath the Spirit of Christ. But where the Spirit of God is there is liberty therefore no slavery therefore sin reigns not there Both the propositions are the words of the Apostle The conclusion therefore infers that the man whom S. Paul describes in this Chapter is not the regenerate man for he hath not liberty but is in captivity to the law of sin from which every one that is Christs every one that hath the Spirit of Christ is freed 13. IV. And this is that which S. Paul calls being under the law that is a being carnal and in the state of the flesh not but that the law it self is spiritual but that we being carnal of our selves are not cured by the law but by reason of the infirmity of the flesh made much worse curbed but not sweetly won admonished but assisted by no spirit but the spirit of bondage and fear This state is opposed to the spiritual state The giving of the law is called the ministery of death the Gospel is called the ministery of the Spirit and that is the ministration of life and therefore if we be led by the Spirit we are not under the law but if we be under the law we are dead and sin is revived and sin by the law brings forth fruit unto death From hence the argument of the Apostle is clear The man whom he here describes is such a one who is under the law but such a man is dead by reason of sin and therefore hath not in him the Spirit of God for that is the ministration of life A regenerate person is alive unto God he lives the life of righteousness but he that is under the law is killed by sin and such is the man that is here described as appears verse 9. and I shall in the sequel further prove therefore this man is not the regenerate 14. V. To which for the likeness of the argument I add this That the man who can say I do that which I hate is a man in whom sin is not mortified and therefore he lives after the flesh but then he is not regenerate for if ye live after the flesh ye shall die saith S. Paul but if ye through the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the body ye shall live These arguments are taken from consideration of the rule and dominion of sin in the man whom S. Paul describes who therefore cannot be a regenerate person To the same effect and conclusion are other expressions in the same Chapter 15. VI. The man whom S. Paul here describes who complains That he does not the good which he would but the evil that he would not is such a one in whom sin does inhabit It is no more I but sin that dwelleth in me But in the regenerate sin does not inhabit My Father and I will come unto him and make our abode with him So Christ promised to his servants to them who should be regenerate and the Spirit of God dwelleth in them the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from the dead and therefore the Regenerate are called the habitation of God through the Spirit Now if God the Father if Christ if the Spirit of Christ dwells in a man there sin does not dwell The strong man that is armed keeps possession but if a stronger than he comes he dispossesses him If the Spirit of God does not drive the Devil forth himself will leave the place They cannot both dwell together Sin may be in the regenerate and grieve Gods Spirit but it shall not abide or dwell there for that extinguishes him One or the other must depart And this also is noted by S. Paul in this very place sin dwelleth in me and no good thing dwelleth in me If one does the other does not but yet as in the unregenerate there might be some good such as are good desires knowledge of good and evil single actions of vertue beginnings and dispositions to grace acknowledging of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ some lightnings and flashes of the holy Ghost a knowing of the way of righteousness but sanctifying saving good does not dwell that is does not abide with them and rule so in the regenerate there is sin but because it does not dwell there they are under the Empire of the Spirit and in Christs Kingdom or as S. Paul expresses it Christ liveth in them and that cannot be unless sin be crucified and dead in them The summ of which is thus in S. Paul's words Reckon your selves indeed to be dead unto sin but alive unto God through Jesus Christ. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof For sin shall not have dominion over you because we are not under the law but under grace 16. VII Lastly the man whom S. Paul describes is carnal but the regenerate is never called carnal in the Scripture but is spiritual oppos'd to carnal A man not only in pure naturals but even plac'd under the law is called carnal that is until he be redeemed by the Spirit of Christ he cannot be called spiritual but is yet in the flesh Now that the regenerate cannot be the carnal man is plain in the words of S. Paul The carnal mind is enmity against God and they that are in the flesh cannot please God To which he adds But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you
to most men and all of it to some men would be ineffectuall yet was pleased to consign our duty that it might be a direction to them that would and a conviction and a Testimony against them that would not obey I thought it might not misbecome my duty and endeavours to plead for peace and charity and forgiveness and permissions mutuall although I had reason to believe that such is the iniquity of men and they so indisposed to receive such impresses that I had as good plow the Sands or till the Air as perswade such Doctrines which destroy mens interests and serve no end but the great end of a happy eternity and what is in order to it But because the events of things are in God's disposition and I knew them not and because if I had known my good purposes would be totally ineffectuall as to others yet my own designation and purposes would be of advantage to myself who might from God's mercy expect the retribution which he is pleased to promise to all pious intendments I resolved to encounter with all Objections and to doe something to which I should be determined by the consideration of the present Distemperatures and necessities by my own thoughts by the Questions and Scruples the Sects and names the interests and animosities which at this day and for some years past have exercised and disquieted Christendom Thus far I discours'd myself into imployment and having come thus far I knew not how to get farther for I had heard of a great experience how difficult it was to make Brick without Straw and here I had even seen my design blasted in the bud and I despaired in the Calends of doing what I purposed in the Ides before For I had no Books of my own here nor any in the voicinage and but that I remembred the result of some of those excellent Discourses I had heard your Lordship make when I was so happy as in private to gather up what your temperance and modesty forbids to be publick I had come in praelia inermis and like enough might have far'd accordingly I had this onely advantage besides that I have chosen a subject in which if my own reason does not abuse me I needed no other books or aids then what a man carries with him on horseback I mean the common principles of Christianity and those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which men use in the transactions of the ordinary occurrences of civil society and upon the strength of them and some other collateral assistances I have run through it utcunque and the sum of the following Discourses is nothing but the sense of these words of Scripture That since we know in part and prophesie in part and that now we see through a glass darkly we should not despise or contemn persons not so knowing as ourselves but him that is weak in the faith we should receive but not to doubtfull disputations therefore certainly to charity and not to vexations not to those which are the idle effects of impertinent wranglings And provided they keep close to the foundation which is Faith and Obedience let them build upon this foundation matter more or less precious yet if the foundation be intire they shall be saved with or without loss And since we profess ourselves servants of so meek a Master and Disciples of so charitable an Institute Let us walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called with all lowliness and meekness with long-suffering forbearing one another in love for this is the best endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit when it is fast tied in the bond of peace And although it be a duty of Christianity that we all speak the same thing that there be no divisions among us but that we be perfectly joyned together in the same mind and in the same judgement yet this unity is to be estimated according to the unity of Faith in things necessary in matters of Creed and Articles fundamental for as for other things it is more to be wished then to be hoped for There are some doubtfull Disputations and in such the Scribe the Wise the Disputer of this world are most commonly very far from certainty and many times from truth There are diversity of perswasions in matters adiaphorous as meats and drinks and holy days c. and both parties the affirmative and the negative affirm and deny with innocence enough for the observer and he that observes not intend both to God and God is our common Master we are all fellow-servants and not the judge of each other in matters of conscience or doubtfull Disputation and every man that hath faith must have it to himself before God but no man must either in such matters judge his brother or set him at nought but let us follow after the things which make for peace and things wherewith one may edifie another And the way to doe that is not by knowledge but by charity for knowledge puffeth up but charity edifieth And since there is not in every man the same knowledge but the consciences of some are weak as my liberty must not be judged of another man's weak conscience so must not I please myself so much in my right opinion but I must also take order that his weak conscience be not offended or despised for no man must seek his own but every man another's wealth And although we must contend earnestly for the Faith yet above all things we must put on charity which is the bond of perfectness And therefore this contention must be with arms fit for the Christian warfare the sword of the Spirit and the shield of Faith and preparation of the Gospel of peace in stead of shoes and a helmet of salvation but not with other arms for a Church-man must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a striker for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual and the persons that use them ought to be gentle and easie to be intreated and we must give an account of our faith to them that ask us with meekness and humility for so is the will of God that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men These and thousands more to the same purpose are the Doctrines of Christianity whose sense and intendment I have prosecuted in the following Discourse being very much displeased that so many Opinions and new Doctrines are commenc'd among us but more troubled that every man that hath an Opinion thinks his own and other mens Salvation is concern'd in its maintenance but most of all that men should be persecuted and afflicted for disagreeing in such Opinions which they cannot with sufficient grounds obtrude upon others necessarily because they cannot propound them infallibly and because they have no warrant from Scripture so to doe For if I shall tie other men to believe my Opinion because I think I have a place of Scripture which
he did his best and his most innocent endeavours And this I say to secure the persons because no Rule can antecedently secure the Proposition in matters disputable For even in the proportions and explications of this Rule there is infinite variety of disputes And when the dispute is concerning Free will one party denies it because he believes it magnifies the grace of God that it works irresistibly the other affirms it because he believes it engages us upon greater care and piety of our endeavours The one Opinion thinks God reaps the glory of our good actions the other thinks it charges our bad actions upon him So in the Question of Merit one part chuses his assertion because he thinks it incourages us to doe good works the other believes it makes us proud and therefore he rejects it The first believes it increases piety the second believes it increases spiritual presumption and vanity The first thinks it magnifies God's justice the other thinks it derogates from his mercy Now then since neither this nor any ground can secure a man from possibility of mistaking we were infinitely miserable if it would not secure us from punishment so long as we willingly consent not to a crime and doe our best endeavour to avoid an errour Onely by the way let me observe that since there are such great differences of apprehension concerning the consequents of an Article no man is to be charged with the odious consequences of his Opinion Indeed his Doctrine is but the person is not if he understands not such things to be consequent to his Doctrine for if he did and then avows them they are his direct Opinions and he stands as chargeable with them as with his first propositions but if he disavows them he would certainly rather quit his Opinion then avow such errours or impieties which are pretended to be consequent to it because every man knows that can be no truth from whence falshood naturally and immediately does derive and he therefore believes his first Proposition because he believes it innocent of such errours as are charged upon it directly or consequently 7. So that now since no errour neither for its self nor its consequents is to be charged as criminal upon a pious person since no simple errour is a sin nor does condemn us before the throne of God since he is so pitifull to our crimes that he pardons many de toto integro in all makes abatement for the violence of temptation and the surprizal and invasion of our faculties and therefore much less will demand of us an account for our weaknesses and since the strongest understanding cannot pretend to such an immunity and exemption from the condition of men as not to be deceived and confess its weakness it remains we inquire what deportment is to be used towards persons of a differing perswasion when we are I do not say doubtfull of a Proposition but convinced that he that differs from us is in Errour for this was the first intention and the last end of this Discourse SECT XIII Of the Deportment to be used towards persons Disagreeing and the reasons why they are not to be punished with Death c. 1. FOR although every man may be deceived yet some are right and may know it too for every man that may erre does not therefore certainly erre and if he erres because he recedes from his Rule then if he follows it he may doe right and if ever any man upon just grounds did change his Opinion then he was in the right and was sure of it too and although confidence is mistaken for a just perswasion many times yet some men are confident and have reason so to be Now when this happens the question is what deportment they are to use towards persons that disagree from them and by consequence are in errour 2. First then No Christian is to be put to death dismembred or otherwise directly persecuted for his Opinion which does not teach Impiety or Blasphemy If it plainly and apparently brings in a crime and himself does act it or incourage it then the matter of fact is punishable according to its proportion or malignity As if he preaches Treason or Sedition his Opinion is not his excuse because it brings in a crime and a man is never the less Traitour because he believes it lawfull to commit Treason and a man is a Murtherer if he kills his brother unjustly although he thinks he does God good service in it Matters of fact are equally judicable whether the principle of them be from within or from without And if a man could pretend to innocence in being seditious blasphemous or perjur'd by perswading himself it is lawfull there were as great a gate opened to all iniquity as will entertain all the pretences the designs the impostures and disguises of the world And therefore God hath taken order that all Rules concerning matters of fact and good life shall be so clearly explicated that without the crime of the man he cannot be ignorant of all his practicall duty And therefore the Apostles and primitive Doctors made no scruple of condemning such persons for Hereticks that did dogmatize a sin He that teaches others to sin is worse then he that commits the crime whether he be tempted by his own interest or incouraged by the other's Doctrine It was as bad in Basilides to teach it to be lawfull to renounce Faith and Religion and take all manner of Oaths and Covenants in time of persecution as if himself had done so Nay it is as much worse as the mischief is more universal or as a fountain is greater then a drop of water taken from it He that writes Treason in a book or preaches Sedition in a Pulpit and perswades it to the people is the greatest Traitour and Incendiary and his Opinion there is the fountain of a sin and therefore could not be entertained in his understanding upon weakness or inculpable or innocent prejudice he cannot from Scripture or Divine revelation have any pretence to colour that so fairly as to seduce either a wise or an honest man If it rest there and goes no farther it is not cognoscible and so scapes that way but if it be published and comes à stylo ad machaeram as Tertullian's phrase is then it becomes matter of fact in principle and in perswasion and is just so punishable as is the crime that it perswades Such were they of whom Saint Paul complains who brought in damnable doctrines and lusts S. Paul's Vtinam abscindantur is just of them take it in any sense of rigour and severity so it be proportionable to the crime or criminal Doctrine Such were those of whom God spake in Deut. 13. If any Prophet tempts to idolatry saying Let us goe after other Gods he shall be slain But these do not come into this Question but the Proposition is to be understood concerning Questions disputable in materia intellectuali which also
not also serve their own ends in giving their Princes such untoward counsel but we find the Laws made severally to several purposes in divers cases and with different severity Constantine the Emperour made a Sanction Vt parem cum fidelibus ii qui errant pacis quietis fruitionem gaudentes accipiant The Emperour Gratian decreed Vt quam quisque vellet religionem sequeretur conventus Ecclesiasticos semoto metu omnes agerent But he excepted the Manichees the Photinians and Eunomians Theodosius the elder made a law of death against the Anabaptists of his time and banished Eunomius and against other erring persons appointed a pecuniary mulct but he did no executions so severe as his sanctions to shew they were made in terrorem onely So were the Laws of Valentinian and Martian decreeing contra omnes qui prava docere tentant that they should be put to death so did Michael the Emperour but Justinian onely decreed banishment 13. But whatever whispers some Politicks might make to their Princes as the wisest and holiest did not think it lawfull for Churchmen alone to doe executions so neither did they transmit such persons to the Secular judicature And therefore when the Edict of Macedonius the President was so ambiguous that it seemed to threaten death to Hereticks unless they recanted S. Austin admonished him carefully to provide that no Heretick should be put to death alledging it not onely to be unchristian but illegal also and not warranted by Imperial constitutions for before his time no Laws were made for their being put to death but however he prevailed that Macedonius published another Edict more explicite and lesse seemingly severe But in his Epistle to Donatus the African Proconsul he is more confident and determinate Necessitate nobis impactâ indictâ ut potiùs occîdi ab eis eligamus quà m eos occidendos vestris judiciis ingeramus 14. But afterwards many got a trick of giving them over to the Secular power which at the best is no better then Hypocrisie removing envy from themselves and laying it upon others a refusing to doe that in externall act which they doe in counsel and approbation which is a transmitting the act to another and retaining a proportion of guilt unto themselves even their own and the others too I end this with the saying of Chrysostome Dogmata impia quae ab haereticis profecta sunt arguere anathematizare oportet hominibus autem parcendum pro salute eorum orandum SECT XV. How far the Church or Governours may act to the restraining false or differing Opinions BUT although Hereticall persons are not to be destroyed yet Heresie being a work of the flesh and all Hereticks criminal persons whose acts and Doctrine have influence upon Communities of men whether Ecclesiasticall or civil the Governours of the Republick or Church respectively are to doe their duties in restraining those mischiefs which may happen to their several charges for whose indemnity they are answerable And therefore according to the effect or malice of the Doctrine or the person so the cognizance of them belongs to several Judicatures If it be false Doctrine in any capacity and doth mischief in any sense or teaches ill life in any instance or encourages evil in any particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these men must be silenced they must be convinced by sound Doctrine and put to silence by spiritual evidence and restrained by Authority Ecclesiasticall that is by spiritual Censures according as it seems necessary to him who is most concern'd in the regiment of the Church For all this we have precept and precedent Apostolicall and much reason For by thus doing the Governour of the Church uses all that Authority that is competent and all the means that is reasonable and that proceeding which is regular that he may discharge his cure and secure his flock And that he possibly may be deceived in judging a Doctrine to be hereticall and by consequence the person excommunicate suffers injury is no argument against the reasonableness of the proceeding For all the injury that is is visible and in appearance and so is his crime Judges must judge according to their best reason guided by Law of God as their Rule and by evidence and appearance as their best instrument and they can judge no better If the Judges be good and prudent the errour of proceeding will not be great nor ordinary and there can be no better establishment of humane judicature then is a fallible proceeding upon an infallible ground And if the judgement of Heresie be made by estimate and proportion of the Opinion to a good or a bad life respectively supposing an errour in the deduction there will be no malice in the conclusion and that he endeavours to secure piety according to the best of his understanding and yet did mistake in his proceeding is onely an argument that he did his duty after the manner of men possibly with the piety of a Saint though not with the understanding of an Angel And the little inconvenience that happens to the person injuriously judged is abundantly made up in the excellency of the Discipline the goodnesse of the example the care of the publick and all those great influences into the manners of men which derive from such an act so publickly consign'd But such publick judgement in matters of Opinion must be seldome and curious and never but to secure piety and a holy life for in matters speculative as all determinations are fallible so scarce any of them are to purpose nor ever able to make compensation of either side either for the publick fraction or the particular injustice if it should so happen in the censure 2. But then as the Church may proceed thus far yet no Christian man or Community of men may proceed farther For if they be deceived in their judgement and censure and yet have passed onely spiritual censures they are totally ineffectual and come to nothing there is no effect remaining upon the Soul and such censures are not to meddle with the body so much as indirectly But if any other judgement passe upon persons erring such judgements whose effects remain if the person be unjustly censured nothing will answer and make compensation for such injuries If a person be excommunicate unjustly it will doe him no hurt but if he be killed or dismembred unjustly that censure and infliction is not made ineffectual by his innocence he is certainly killed and dismembred So that as the Churche's Authority in such cases so restrained and made prudent cautelous and orderly is just and competent so the proceeding is reasonable it is provident for the publick and the inconveniences that may fall upon particulars so little as that the publick benefit makes ample compensation so long as the proceeding is but spiritual 3. This discourse is in the case of such Opinions which by the former rules are formal Heresies and upon practicall inconveniences But
and efficacy of the Premisses and that the persons should not more certainly be condemned then their Opinions confuted and lastly that the infirmities of men and difficulties of things should be both put in balance to make abatement in the definitive sentence against mens persons But then because Toleration of Opinions is not properly a Question of Religion it may be a Question of Policy and although a man may be a good Christian though he believe an errour not fundamental and not directly or evidently impious yet his Opinion may accidentally disturb the publick peace through the over-activeness of the persons and the confidence of their belief and the opinion of its appendant necessity and therefore Toleration of differing Perswasions in these cases is to be considered upon political grounds and is just so to be admitted or denied as the Opinions or Toleration of them may consist with the publick and necessary ends of Government Onely this As Christian Princes must look to the interest of their Government so especially must they consider the interests of Christianity and not call every redargution or modest discovery of an established errour by the name of disturbance of the peace For it is very likely that the peevishness and impatience of contradiction in the Governours may break the peace Let them remember but the gentleness of Christianity the liberty of Consciences which ought to be preserved and let them doe justice to the persons whoever they are that are peevish provided no man's person be over-born with prejudice For if it be necessary for all men to subscribe to the present established Religion by the same reason at another time a man may be bound to subscribe to the contradictory and so to all Religions in the world And they onely who by their too much confidence intitle God to all their fancies and make them to be Questions of Religion and evidences for Heaven or consignations to Hell they onely think this Doctrine unreasonable and they are the men that first disturb the Churche's peace and then think there is no appeasing the tumult but by getting the victory But they that consider things wisely understand that since salvation and damnation depend not upon impertinencies and yet that publick peace and tranquillity may the Prince is in this case to seek how to secure Government and the issues and intentions of that while there is in these cases directly no insecurity to Religion unless by the accidental uncharitableness of them that dispute which uncharitableness is also much prevented when the publick peace is secured and no person is on either side ingaged upon revenge or troubled with disgrace or vexed with punishments by any decretory sentence against him It was the saying of a wise States-man I mean Thuanus Haeretici qui pace datâ factionibus scinduntur persecutione uniuntur contra Remp. If you persecute Hâ—â—reticks or Discrepants they unite themselves as to a common defence if you permit them they divide themselves upon private interest and the rather if this interest was an ingredient of the Opinion 5. The summe is this It concerns the duty of a Prince because it concerns the Honour of God that all vices and every part of ill life be discountenanced and restrained and therefore in relation to that Opinions are to be dealt with For the understanding being to direct the will and Opinions to guide our practices they are considerable onely as they teach impiety and vice as they either dishonour God or disobey him Now all such Doctrines are to be condemned but for the persons preaching such Doctrines if they neither justifie nor approve the pretended consequences which are certainly impious they are to be separated from that consideration But if they know such consequences and allow them or if they do not stay till the Doctrines produce impiety but take sin before-hand and manage them impiously in any sense or if either themselves or their Doctrine do really and without colour or feigned pretext disturb the publick peace and just interests they are not to be suffered In all other cases it is not onely lawfull to permit them but it is also necessary that Princes and all in Authority should not persecute discrepant Opinions And in such cases wherein persons not otherwise incompetent are bound to reprove an errour as they are in many in all these if the Prince makes restraint he hinders men from doing their duty and from obeying the Laws of Jesus Christ. SECT XVII Of Compliance with Disagreeing persons or weak Consciences in general 1. UPon these grounds it remains that we reduce this Doctrine to practical Conclusions and consider among the differing Sects and Opinions which trouble these parts of Christendome and come into our concernment which Sects of Christians are to be tolerated and how far and which are to be restrained and punished in their several proportions 2. The first Consideration is since diversity of Opinions does more concern publick peace then Religion what is to be done to persons who disobey a publick Sanction upon a true allegation that they cannot believe it to be lawfull to obey such Constitutions although they disbelieve them upon insufficient grounds that is whether in constituta lege disagreeing persons or weak Consciences are to be complied withall and their disobeying and disagreeing tolerated 3. First In this Question there is no distinction can be made between persons truly weak and but pretending so For all that pretend to it are to be allowed the same liberty whatsoever it be for no man's spirit is known to any but to God and himself and therefore pretences and realities in this case are both alike in order to the publick Toleration And this very thing is one argument to perswade a Negative For the chief thing in this case is the concernment of publick Government which is then most of all violated when what may prudently be permitted to some purposes may be demanded to many more and the piety of the Laws abused to the impiety of other mens ends And if Laws be made so malleable as to comply with weak Consciences he that hath a minde to disobey is made impregnable against the coercitive power of the Laws by this pretence For a weak Conscience signifies nothing in this case but a dislike of the Law upon a contrary perswasion For if some weak Consciences do obey the Law and others do not it is not their weakness indefinitely that is the cause of it but a definite and particular perswasion to the contrary So that if such a pretence be excuse sufficient from obeying then the Law is a Sanction obliging every one to obey that hath a minde to it and he that hath not may chuse that is it is no Law at all for he that hath a mind to it may doe it if there be no Law and he that hath no mind to it need not for all the Law 4. And therefore the wit of man cannot prudently frame a law
receptive of any interpretation rather then the Commonwealth be disarmed of its necessary supports and all Laws made ineffectual and impertinent For the interest of the Republick and the well being of Bodies politick is not to depend upon the nicety of our imaginations or the fancies of any peevish or mistaken Priests and there is no reason a Prince should ask John-a-Brunck whether his understanding would give him leave to reign and be a King Nay suppose there were divers places of Scripture which did seemingly restrain the politicall use of the Sword yet since the avoiding a personal inconvenience hath by all men been accounted sufficient reason to expound Scripture to any sense rather then the literal which infers an unreasonable inconvenience and therefore the pulling out an eye and the cutting off a hand is expounded by mortifying a vice and killing a criminal habit much rather must the Allegations against the power of the Sword endure any sense rather then it should be thought that Christianity should destroy that which is the onely instrument of Justice the restraint of vice and support of Bodies politick It is certain that Christ and his Apostles and Christian Religion did comply with the most absolute Government and the most imperial that was then in the world and it could not have been at all endured in the world if it had not for indeed the world itself could not last in regular and orderly communities of men but be a perpetuall confusion if Princes and the Supreme power in Bodies politick were not armed with a coercive power to punish malefactors the publick necessity and universal experience of all the world convinces those men of being most unreasonable that make such pretences which destroy all Laws and all Communities and the bands of civil Societies and leave it arbitrary to every vain or vicious person whether men shall be safe or Laws be established or a murtherer hanged or Princes rule So that in this case men are not so much to dispute with particular Arguments as to consider the interest and concernment of Kingdoms and publick Societies For the Religion of Jesus Christ is the best establisher of the felicity of private persons and of publick Communities it is a Religion that is prudent and innocent humane and reasonable and brought infinite advantages to mankind but no inconvenience nothing that is unnatural or unsociable or unjust And if it be certain that this world cannot be governed without Laws and Laws without a compulsory signifie nothing then it is certain that it is no good Religion that teaches Doctrine whose consequents will destroy all Government and therefore it is as much to be rooted out as any thing that is the greatest pest and nuisance to the publick interest And that we may guess at the purposes of the men and the inconvenience of such Doctrine these men that did first intend by their Doctrine to disarm all Princes and Bodies politick did themselves take up arms to establish their wild and impious fancy And indeed that Prince or Commonwealth that should be perswaded by them would be exposed to all the insolencies of forreiners and all mutinies of the Teachers themselves and the Governours of the people could not doe that duty they owe to their people of protecting them from the rapine and malice which will be in the world as long as the world is And therefore here they are to be restrained from preaching such Doctrine if they mean to preserve their Government and the necessity of the thing will justifie the lawfulness of the thing If they think it to themselves that cannot be helped so long it is innocent as much as concerns the publick but if they preach it they may be accounted Authours of all the consequent inconveniences and punisht accordingly No Doctrine that destroys Government is to be endured For although those Doctrines are not always good that serve the private ends of Princes or the secret designs of State which by reason of some accidents or imperfections of men may be promoted by that which is false and pretending yet no Doctrine can be good that does not comply with the formality of Government itself and the well-being of Bodies politick Augur cùm esset Cato dicere usus est optimis auspiciis ea geri quae pro Reipub. salute gererentur quae contra Rempub fierent contra auspicia fieri Religion is to meliorate the condition of a people not to doe it disadvantage and therefore those Doctrines that inconvenience the publick are no parts of good Religion Vt Respub salva sit is a necessary consideration in the permission of Prophesyings for according to the true solid and prudent ends of the Republick so is the Doctrine to be permitted or restrained and the men that preach it according as they are good subjects and right Commonwealths-men For Religion is a thing superinduced to temporal Government and the Church is an addition of a capacity to a Commonwealth and therefore is in no sense to disserve the necessity and just interests of that to which it is superadded for its advantage and conservation 2. And thus by a proportion to the rules of these instances all their other Doctrines â—re to have their judgement as concerning Toleration or restraint for all are either speculative or practicall they are consistent with the publick ends or inconsistent they teach impiety or they are innocent and they are to be permitted or rejected accordingly For in the Question of Toleration the foundation of Faith good life and Government is to be secured in all other cases the former considerations are effectuall SECT XX. How far the Religion of the Church of Rome is tolerable 1. BUT now concerning the Religion of the Church of Rome which was the other instance I promised to consider we will proceed another way and not consider the truth or falsity of the Doctrines for that is not the best way to determine this Question concerning permitting their Religion or Assemblies Because that a thing is not true is not Argument sufficient to conclude that he that believes it true is not to be endured but we are to consider what inducements they are that possess the understanding of those men whether they be reasonable and innocent sufficient to abuse or perswade wise and good men or whether the Doctrines be commenced upon design and managed with impiety and then have effects not to be endured 2. And here first I consider that those Doctrines that have had long continuance and possession in the Church cannot easily be supposed in the present professors to be a design since they have received it from so many Ages and it is not likely that all Ages should have the same purposes or that the same Doctrine should serve the severall ends of divers Ages But however long prescription is a prejudice oftentimes so insupportable that it cannot with many Arguments be retrenched as relying upon these grounds that Truth is more
Scripture both for the confirmation of good things and also for the reproof of the evil S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. 12. Illuminat saith Attend not to my inventions for you may possibly be deceiv'd but trust no word unless thou dost learn it from the Divine Scriptures and in Catech. 4. Illum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For it behoves us not to deliver so much as the least thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine and holy mysteries of Faith without the Divine Scriptures nor to be moved with probable discourses Neither give credit to me speaking unless what is spoken be demonstrated by the Holy Scriptures For that is the security of our Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is derived not from witty inventions but from the demonstration of Divine Scriptures Omne quod loquimur debemus affirmare de Scripturis Sanctis so S. Hierom in Psal. 89. And again Hoc quia de Scripturis authoritatem non habet eâdem facilitate contemnitur quâ probatur in Matth. 23. Si quid dicitur absque Scripturâ auditorum cogitatio claudicat So S. Chrysostom in Psal. 95. Homil. Theodoret Dial. 1. cap. 6. brings in the Orthodox Christian saying to Eranistes Bring not to me your Logismes and Syllogismes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I rely only upon Scriptures I could reckon very very many more both elder and later and if there be any Universal Tradition consigned to us by the Universal Testimony of Antiquity it is this that the Scriptures are a perfect repository of all the Will of God of all the Faith of Christ and this I will engage my self to make very apparent to you and certain against any opposer Upon the supposition of which it follows that whatever the Church of Rome obtrudes as necessary to Salvation and an Article of Faith that is not in Scripture is an Innovation in matter of Faith and a Tyranny over Consciences which whosoever submits to prevaricates the rule of the Apostle commanding us that we stand fast in the liberty with which Christ hath set us free To the other Question Whether an Ecclesiastical Tradition be of equal authority with Divine I answer Negatively And I believe I shall have no adversary in it except peradventure some of the Jesuited Bigots An Ecclesiastical Tradition viz. a positive constitution of the Church delivered from hand to hand is in the power of the Church to alter but a Divine is not Ecclesiastical Traditions in matters of Faith there are none but what are also Divine as for Rituals Ecclesiastical descending by Tradition they are confessedly alterable but till they be altered by abrogation or desuetude or contrary custom or a contrary reason or the like they do oblige by vertue of that Authority whatsoever it is that hath power over you I know not what Mr. G. did say but I am confident they who reported it of him were mistaken He could not say or mean what is charged upon him I have but two things more to speak to One is you desire me to recite what else might impede your compliance with the Roman Church I answer Truth and Piety hinder you For you must profess the belief of many false propositions and certainly believe many Uncertain things and be uncharitable to all the world but your own party and make Christianity a faction and you must yield your reason a servant to man and you must plainly prevaricate an institution of Christ and you must make an apparent departure from the Church in which you received your Baptism and the Spirit of God if you go over to Rome But Sir I refer you to the two Letters I have lately published at the end of my Discourse of Friendship and I desire you to read my Treatise of the Real Presence and if you can believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation you can put off your reason and your sense and your religion and all the instruments of Credibility when you please and these are not little things In these you may perish an error in these things is practical but our way is safe as being upon the defence and intirely resting upon Scripture and the Apostolical Churches The other thing I am to speak to is the report you have heard of my inclinations to go over to Rome Sir that party which needs such lying stories for the support of their Cause proclaim their Cause to be very weak or themselves to be very evil Advocates Sir be confident they dare not tempt me to do so and it is not the first time they have endeavoured to serve their ends by saying such things of me But I bless God for it it is perfectly a Slander and it shall I hope for ever prove so Sir if I may speak with you I shall say very many things more for your confirmation Pray to God to guide you and make no change suddenly For if their way be true to day it will be so to morrow and you need not make haste to undo your self Sir I wish you a setled mind and a holy Conscience and that I could serve you in the capacity of Your very Loving Friend and Servant in our Blessed Lord JER TAYLOR Munday Jan. 11. 1657. THE SECOND LETTER SIR I Perceive that you are very much troubled and I see also that you are in great danger but that also troubles me because I see they are little things and very weak and fallacious that move you You propound many things in your Letter in the same disorder as they are in your Conscience to all which I can best give answers when I speak with you to which because you desire I invite you and promise you a hearty endeavour to give you satisfaction in all your material inquiries Sir I desire you to make no haste to change in case you be so miserable as to have it in your thoughts for to go over to the Church of Rome is like death there is no recovery from thence without a Miracle because Unwary souls such are they who change from us to them are with all the arts of wit and violence strangely entangled and ensur'd when they once get the prey Sir I thank you for the Paper you inclosed The men are at a loss they would fain say something against that Book but know not what Sir I will endeavour if you come to me to restore you to peace and quiet and if I cannot effect it yet I will pray for it and I am sure God can To his Mercy I commend you and rest Your very affectionate Friend in our Blessed Lord JER TAYLOR Febr. 1. 1657 8. THE THIRD LETTER SIR THE first Letter which you mention in this latter of the 10 th of March I received not I had not else failed to give you an answer I was so wholly unknowing of it that I did not understand your Servant's meaning when he came to require an answer But to your Question which you now propound I answer
well as the institution it self 201 § 5. Scotus affirmed that the truth of the Eucharist may be saved without Transubstantiation 234 § 11. Some have been poisoned by receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist 249 ss 11. The wine will inebriate after consecration therefore it is not bloud 249 § 11. The Marcossians Valentinians and Marcionites though they denied Christ's having a body yet used the Eucharistical Elements 256 § 12. The Council of Trent binds all its subjects to give to the Sacrament of the Altar the same worship which they give to the true God 267 § 13. To worship the Host is Idolatry 268 § 13. They that worship the Host are many times according to their own doctrine in danger of Idolatry 268 269 § 13. Lewis IX pawned the Host to the Sultan of Egypt upon which they bear it to this day in their Escutcheons 270 § 13. The Primitive Church did excommunicate those that did not receive the Eucharist in both kinds Pref. to Diss. pag. 5. The Council of Constance decreed the half Communion with a non obstante to our Lord's institution 302 c. 1. § 6. Authorities to shew that the half Communion was not in use in the Primitive times 303 c. 1. § 6. Of their worshipping the Host 467. Of Communion in one kind onely 469 470. The word Celebrate when spoken of the Eucharist means the action of the people as well as the Priest 530. The Church of God gave the Chalice to the people for above a thousand years 531. The Roman Churche's consecrating a Wafer is a mere innovation 531 532. The Priest's pardon anciently was nothing but to admit the penitent to the Eucharist 839 n. 54. Of the change that is made in us by it 28. b. The Apostles were confirmed after 30. b. Eusebius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. and 524. Excommunication Neither the Church nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sometimes it was put to signifie Ecclesiastical repentance 830 n. 34. Exorcisms Their exorcisms have been so bad that the Inquisitors have been fain to put them down 333 § 10. The manner of their casting out Devils by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. They give Exorcists distinct ordination 336. Exorcism in the Primitive Church signified nothing but Catechizing 30. b. Ezekiel Chap. 18. v. 3. explained 726 n. 61. F. Faith THE folly of that assertion Credo quia impossibile est when applied to Transubstantiation 231 § 11. To make new Articles of faith that are not in Scripture as the Papists do is condemned by the suffrage of the Fathers Pref. to Diss. pag. 4 5. The Church of Rome adopts uncertain and trifling propositions into their faith 462. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no arricle of faith in Saint Augustine's time 506. What faith is and wherein it consists 941 n. 1. New Articles cannot by the Church be decreed 945 n. 12. Faith is not an act of the understanding onely 949 n. 9. By what circumstances faith becomes moral 950 n. 9. The Romanists keep not faith with hereticks 341. Instances of doctrines that are held by some Romanists to be de fide by others to be not de fide 398. What makes a point to be de fide 399. What it is to be an Article of faith 437. Some things are necessary to be believed that are not articles of faith 437. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new articles as necessary to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Pope hath not power to make Articles of faith 446 447. Upon what motives most men imbrace the faith 460. The faith of unlearned men in the Roman Church 461. Fasting It is one of the best Penances 860 n. 114. Father How God punisheth the Father's sin upon the Children 725. God never imputes the Father's sin to the Children so as to inflict eternal punishment but onely temporal 725 n. 56. This God doth onely in punishments of the greatest crimes 725 n. 59. and not often 726 n. 60. but before the Gospel was published 726 n. 62. Fathers When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of some Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. No man but J. S. affirms that the Fathers are infallible 372 373 374. The Fathers stile some hereticks that are not 376. Of what authority the opinion of the Fathers is with some Romanists 376 377. They complained of the dismal troubles in the Church that arose upon enlarging Creeds 441. They reproved pilgrimages 293 496. The Primitive Fathers that practised prayer for the dead thought not of Purgatory 501. They made prayer for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers 512. A Reply to that Answer of the Romanists That the writings of the Fathers do forbid nothing else but picturing the Divine Essence 550 554. In what sense the ancient Fathers taught the doctrine of original sin 761 n. 22. How the Fathers were divided in the question of the beatifick vision of souls before the day of Judgement 1007. The practice of Rome now is against the doctrine of S. Augustine and 217 Bishops and all their Successours for a whole age together in the question of Appeals to Rome 1008. One Father for them the Papists value more then twenty against them in that case how much they despise them 1008. Gross mistakes taught by several Fathers ibid. The writings of the Fathers adulterated of old and by modern practices 1010. particularly by the Indices Expurgatorii 1011. Fear To leave a sin out of fear is not sinful but may be accepted 785 n. 37. Figure Ambiguous and figurative words may be allowed in a Testament humane or Divine 210 § 6. A certain Athenian's enigmatical Testament ibid. The Lamb is said to be the Passeover of which deliverance it was onely the commemorative sign 211 § 6. How many figurative terms there are in the words of institution 211 212 § 6. When the figurative sense is to be chosen in Scripture 213 § 6. Flesh. The law of the flesh in man 781 n. 31. The contention between it and the Conscience no sign of Regeneration 782 n. 32. How to know which prevails in the contention 782 n. 5. Forgiving Forgiving injuries considered as a part or fruit of Repentance 849 n. 83. Free-will How the necessity of Grace is consistent with this doctrine 754 n. 15. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose it 874. The folly of that assertion We are free to sin but not to good 874. Liberty of action in natural things is better but in moral things it is a weakness 874. G. Galatians CHap. 5.15
sin 673 n. 47. M. Malefactors BEing condemned by the customs of Spain they are allowed respite till their Confessor supposeth them competently prepared 678 n 56. Man The weakness and frailty of humane nature 734 n. 82. in his body soul and spirit 735 n. 83. and 486. Mark Chap. 12.34 explained 780 n. 26. Chap. 12.32 explained 809. Justin Martyr His testimony against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. and 522 523. His testimony against Purgatory 513 514. Mass. A Cardinal in his last Will took order to have fifty thousand Masses said for his soul 320. Indulgences make not the multitude of Masses less necessary 320 c. 2. § 4. Pope John VIII gave leave to the Moravians to have Mass in the Sclavonian tongue 534. Saint Matthew Chap. 26.11 Me ye have not always explained 222 § 9. Chap. 28.20 I am with you always to the end of the world explained ibid. Chap. 18.17 Dic Ecclesiae explained 389. Chap. 15.9 teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 471 472 477. Chap. 5.19 one of the least of these Commandments 615 616 n. 18. Chap. 5.19 explained ibid n. 18. Chap. 5. v. 22. explained 622 n. 34. Chap. 12.32 explained 810. Chap. 15.48 explained 582 n. 40 43. Chap. 5.22 shall be guilty of judgement 621 n. 34. Mercy God's Mercy and Justice reconciled about his exacting the Law 580. Merit Pope Adrian taught that one out of the state of Grace may merit for another in the state of Grace 320 321. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The difference between them 596 n. 1. Millenaries Their opinion how much it spread and prevailed in the ancient Church 976 n. 3. Miracles The miraculous Apparitions that are brought to prove Transubstantiation proved to be false by their own doctrine 229 § 10. Of those now-adays wrought by the Romanists 452. The Dominicans and Franciscans brought Miracles on both sides in proof both for and against the immaculate Conception 1019. Of false Miracles and Legends 1020. Miracles not a sufficient argument to prove a doctrine ibid. Canus his opinion of the Legenda Lombardica ibid. The Pope in the Lateran Council made a decree against false Miracles 1020. Montanus His Heresie mistaken by Epiphanius 955 n. 18. Moral The difference between the Moral Regenerate and Prophane man in committing sin 782 n. 33. and 820 n. 1. Mortal Sin Between the least mortal sin and greatest venial sin no man can distinguish 610 n. 2. Mortification It is a precept not a counsel 672 n. 44. The method of mortifying vicious habits 691 n. 10 11. The benefits of it 690. n. 6. Mysterie The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist like other mysteries is not to be searched into as to the manner of it too curiously 182 § 1. N. Nature OF the use of that word in the controversie of Transubstantiation 251 § 12. By the strength of it alone men cannot get to heaven 885. The state of nature 770 n. 1 2. c. 8. § 1. What the phrase by nature means 723 n. 48. By it alone we cannot be saved 737 n. 86. The use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 767 n. 35. Necessity Of that distinction Necessitas praecepti and medii 8. b. There is in us no natural necessity of sinning 754 n. 15. Nicolaitans The authour of that Heresie vindicated from false imputations 953 n. 17. Novatians Their doctrine opposed 802 n. 8. A great objection of theirs proposed 806 n. 24. and answered 807 n. 26. O. Obedience ARguments to prove that perfect obedience to God's Law is impossible 576 577 n. 15. ad 19. Obstinacy Two kinds of it the one sinful the other not so 951 n. 10. Opinion A man is not to be charged with the odious consequents of his opinion 1024. Sometimes on both sides of the Opinion it is pretended that the Proposition promotes the honour of God ibid. How hard it is not to be deceived in weighing some Opinions of Religion 1026. Ordination Pope Pelagius not lawfully ordained Bishop according to the Canon 98 § 31. A Presbyter did once assist at the ordaining a Bishop ibid. Ordo and gradus were at first used promiscuously 98 § 31. How strangely some of the Church of Rome do define Orders 99 § 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had Episcopal Ordinaâ—ion but not Jurisdiction 102 § 32. Presbyters could not ordain 102 § 32. The Council of Sardis would not own them as Presbyters who were ordained by none but Presbyters 103 § 32. Novatus was ordained by a Bishop without the assistance of other Clergy 104 § 32. A Bishop may ordain without the concurrence of a Presbyter in the Ceremony 105 § 32. Concerning Ordination in the Reformed Churches without Bishops 105 § 32. Saint Cyprian did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters 145 146 § 44. A Pope accused in the Lateran Council for not being in Orders 325 c. 2. § 7. The Romanists give distinct Ordination to their Exorcists 336. Origen His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. Original sin In what sense it is damnable 570. How that doctrine is contrary to the Pelagian 571. Some Romanists in this doctrine have receded as much from the definitions of their Church as this Authour from the English and without offence 571. Original sin is manifest in the many effects of it 869. The true doctrine of Original sin 869 870 896. The errours in that Article 871. There are sixteen several and famous opinions in the Article of Original sin 877. Against that Proposition Original sin makes us liable to damnation yet none are damned for it 878 n. 5. 879 n. 6 7. The ill consequence of the mistakes in this doctrine 883 884. If Infants are not under the guilt of original sin why are they baptized That objection answered 884. The difficulties that Saint Augustine and others found in explicating the traduction of original sin 896. The Authour's doctrine about Original sin It is proved that it contradicts not the Ninth Article of the Church of England 898 899. Concupiscence is not it 911. Whether we derive from Adam original and natural ignorance 713 n. 22. Adam's sin made us not heirs of damnation ibid. nor makes us necessarily vicious 717 n. 37. Adam's sin did not corrupt our nature by a natural efficiency 717 n. 39. nor because we were in the loins of Adam 717 n. 40. nor because of the will and decree of God 717 n. 41. Objections out of Scripture against this doctrine answered 720 n. 46. Vid. Sin The Authour affirmeth not that there is no such thing as original sin 747 748 n. 1. He is not singular in his doctrine 762 n. 24 26. The want of original righteousness is no sin 752 n. 10. In what sense the ancient Fathers taught the doctrine of Original sin 761 n. 22. With what variety the doctrine of Original sin was anciently taught 761 n. 23. How much they are divided amongst themselves who say that Original sin is in us formally a sin 762 n. 25. Original sin
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.
can be understood where it is said who shall endure the day of his coming c. 3. Saint Austin speaks things expresly against the Doctrine of Purgatory Know ye that when the soul is pluck'd from the body presently it is plac'd in Paradise according to its good deservings or else for her sins is thrown headlong in inferni Tartara into the hell of the damned for I know not well how else to render it And again the soul retiring is receiv'd by Angels and plac'd either in the bosom of Abraham if she be faithful or in the custody of the infernal prison if it be sinful until the appointed day comes in which she shall receive her body pertinent to which is that of Saint Austin if he be Author of that excellent Book de Eccles. dogmatibus which is imputed to him After the ascension of our Lord to the Heavens the souls of all the Saints are with Christ and going from the body go unto Christ expecting the resurrection of their body But I shall insist no further upon these things I suppose it very apparent that Saint Austin was no way confident of his fancy of Purgatory and that if he had fancied right yet it was not the Roman Purgatory that he fancied There is only one Objection which I know of which when I have clear'd I shall pass on to other things Saint Austin speaking of such who have liv'd a middle kind of an indifferent pious life saith Constat autem c. but it is certain that such before the day of judgment being purg'd by temporal pains which their spirits suffer when they have receiv'd their bodies shall not be deliver'd to the punishment of Eternal fire here is a positive determination of the Article by a word of confidence and a full certificate and therefore Saint Austin in this Article was not a doubting person To this I answer it may be he was confident here but it lasted not long this fire was made of straw and soon went out for within two Chapters after he expresly doubts as I have provâ—d 2. These words may refer to the purgatory fire at the general conflagration of the world and if they be so referred it is most agreeable to his other sentiments 3. This Constat or decretory phrase and some lines before or after it are not in the old Books of Bruges and Colein nor in the Copies printed at Friburg and Ludovicus Vives supposes they were a marginal note crept since into the Text. Now this Objection being remov'd there remains no ground to deny that Saint Austin was a doubting person in the Article of Purgatory And this Erasmus expresly affirm'd of him and the same is said of him by Hofmeister but modestly and against his doubting in his Enchiridion he brings only a testimony in behalf of prayer for the dead which is nothing to the purpose and this is also sufficiently noted by Alphonsus à Castro and by Barnesius Well! but suppose Saint Austin did doubt of Purgatory This is no warranty to the Church of England for she does not doubt of it as Saint Austin did but plainly condemns it So one of my Adversaries objects To which I answer That the Church of England may the rather condemn it because Saint Austin doubted of it for if it be no Catholick Doctrine it is but a School point and without prejudice to the Faith may be rejected But 2. I suppose the Church of England would not have troubled her self with the Doctrine if it had been left as Saint Austin left it that is but as a meer uncertain Opinion but when the wrong end of the Opinion was taken and made an Article of Faith and damnation threatned to them that believed it not she had reason to consider it and finding it to be chaff wholly to scatter it away 3. The Church of England is not therefore to be blamed if in any case she see more than Saint Austin did and proceed accordingly for it is certain the Church of Rome does decree against divers things of which Saint Austin indeed did not doubt but affirm'd confidently I instance in the necessity of communicating Infants and the matter of appeals to Rome The next Authority to be examin'd is that of Otho Frisingensis concerning which there is a heavy quarrel against the Dissuasive for making him to speak of a Purgatory before whereas he speaks of one after the day of Judgment with a Quidam asserunt some affirm it viz. that there is a place of Purgatory after death nay but you are deceiv'd sayes E. W. and the rest of the Adversaries he means that some affirm there is a place of Purgatory after the day of judgment Now truly that is more than I said but that Otho said it is by these men confess'd But his words are these I think it ought to be search'd whether the judgment being pass'd besides the lower hell there remain a place for lighter punishments for that there is below or in hell a Purgatory place in which they that are to be savâ—d are either affected afficiantur invested punish'd with darkness only or else are boiled in the fire of expiation some do affirm What is or can be more plainly said of Purgatory for the places of Scripture brought to confirm this Opinion are such which relate to the interval between death and the last judgment Juxta illud Patriarchae lugens descendam ad inferos illud Apostoli ipse autem salvus erit sic tamen quasi per ignem I hope the Roman Doctors will not deny but these are meant of Purgatory before the last day and therefore so is the Opinion for the proof of which these places are brought 2. By post judicium in the title and transacto judicio in the Chapter Otho means the particular judgment passing upon every one at their death which he in a few lines after calls terminatis in judicio causis singulorum 3. He must mean it to be before the last great day because that which he sayes some do affirm quidam asserunt is that those which are salvandi to be sav'd hereafter are either in darkness or in a Purgatory fire which therefore must be meant of the interval for after the day of judgment is pass'd and the books shut and the sentence pronounc'd none can be sav'd that are not then acquitted unless Origen's Opinion of the salvation of Devils and damned souls be reintroduc'd which the Church before Otho many Ages had exploded and therefore so good and great a person would not have thought that fit to be then disputed and it was not then a Question nor a thing Undetermin'd in the Church 4. Whether Otho means it of a Purgatory before or after the day of the last judgment it makes very much against the present Roman Doctrine for Otho applies the Question to the case of Infants dying without Baptism now if their Purgatory be before the day of judgment
then I quoted Otho according to my own sence and his but if he means it to be after the day of judgment then the limbus infantum of the Roman Church is vanish'd for the scruple was mov'd about Infants Quid de parvulis qui solo Originali delicto tenentur fiet And there is none such till after dooms day so that let it be as it will the Roman Church is a loser and therefore let them take their choice on which side they will fall But now after Saint Austin's time especially in the time of Saint Gregory and since there were many strange stories told of souls appearing after death and telling strange things of their torments below many of which being gather'd together by the speculum exemplorum the Legend of Lombardy and others some of them were noted by the Dissuasive to this purpose to shew that in the time when these stories were told the fire of Purgatory did not burn clear but they found Purgatory in Baths in Eves of Houses in Frosts and cold Rains upon Spits rosting like Pigs or Geese upon pieces of Ice Now to this there is nothing said but that in the place quoted in the speculum there is no such thing which saying as it was spoken invidiously so it was to no purpose for if the Objector ever hath read the distinction which is quoted throughout he should have found the whole story at large It is the 31 example page 205. Col. 1. printed at Doway 1603. And the same words are exactly in an ancienter Edition printed at the Imperial Town of Hagenaw 1519. Impensis Johannis Rynman But these Gentlemen care not for the force of any Argument if they can any way put it off from being believ'd upon any foolish pretence But then as to the thing it self though learned men deny the Dialogues of Saint Gregory from whence many of the like stories are deriv'd to be his as Possevine confesses and Melchior Canus though a little timorously affirms yet I am willing to admit them for his but yet I cannot but note that those Dialogues have in them many foolish ridiculous and improbable stories but yet they and their like are made a great ground of Purgatory but then the right also may be done to Saint Gregory his Doctrine of Purgatory cannot consist with the present Article of the Church of Rome so fond they are in the alledging of Authorities that they destroy their own hypothesis by their undiscerning quotations For 1. Saint Gregory Pope affirms that which is perfectly inconsistent with the whole Doctrine of Purgatory For he sayes That it is a fruit of our redemption by the grace of Christ our Author that when we are drawn from our dwelling in the body Mox forthwith we are lead to câ—lestial rewards and a little after speaking of those words of Job In profundissimum infernum descendunt omnia mea he sayes thus Since it is certain that in the lower region the just are not in penal places but are held in the superior bosom of rest a great question arises what is the meaning of Blessed Job If Purgatory can stand with this hypothesis of Saint Gregory then fire and water can be reconcil'd This is the Doctrine of Saint Gregory in his own works for whether the Dialogues under his name be his or no I shall not dispute but if I were studying to do honour to his memory I should never admit them to be his and so much the rather because the Doctrine of the Dialogues contradicts the Doctrine of his Commentaries and yet even the Purgatory which is in the Dialogues is unlike that which was declar'd at Basil for the Gregorian Purgatory supposed only an expiation of small and light faults as immoderate laughter impertinent talking which nevertheless he himself sayes are expiable by fear of death and Victoria and Jacobus de Graffis say are to be taken away by beating the breast holy water the Bishops blessing and Saint Austin sayes they are to be taken off by daily saying the Lords prayer and therefore being so easily so readily so many wayes to be purg'd here it will not be worth establishing a Purgatory for such alone but he admits not of any remaining punishment due to greater sins forgiven by the blood of Christ. But concerning Saint Gregory I shall say no more but refer the Reader to the Apology of the Greeks who affirm that Saint Gregory admitted a kind of Purgatory but whether allegorically or no or thinking so really they know not but what he said was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by way of dispensation and as it were constrained to it by the Arguments of those who would have all sins expiable after death against whom he could not so likely prevail if he had said that none was and therefore he thought himself forc'd to go a middle way and admit a Purgatory only for little or venial sins which yet will do no advantage to the Church of Rome And besides all this Saint Gregory or whoever is the Author of these Dialogues hath nothing definite or determin'd concerning the time manner measure or place so wholly new was this Doctrine then that it had not gotten any shape or feature Next I am to account concerning the Greeks whom I affirm alwayes to have differed from the Latins since they had forg'd this new Doctrine of Purgatory in the Roman Laboratories and to prove something of this I affirm'd that in the Council of Basil they publish'd an Apology directly disapproving the Doctrine of Purgatory Against this up starts a man fierce and angry and sayes there was no such Apology publish'd in the Council of Basil for he had examined it all over and can find no such Apology I am sorry for the Gentlemans loss of his labour but if he had taken me along with him I could have help'd the learned man This Apology was written by Marcus Metropolitan of Ephesus as Sixtus Senensis confesses and that he offered it to the Council of Basil. That it was given and read to the Deputies of the Council June 14. 1438. is attested by Cusanus and Martinus Crusius in his Turco-Graecia But it is no wonder if this over-learned Author of the Letter miss'd this Apology in his search of the Council of Basil for this is not the only material thing that is missing in the Editions of the Council of Basil for Linwood that great and excellent English Canonist made an Appeal in that Council and prosecuted it with effect in behalf of King Henry of England Cum in temporalibus non recognoscat superiorem in terris c. But nothing of this now appears though it was then registred but it is no new thing to forge or to suppress Acts of Councils But besides this I did not suppose he would have been so indiscreet as to have look'd for that Apology in the Editions of the Council of Basil but it was deliver'd to the