this we understand the reproof which S. Paul makes of the Gnosticks Col. 2. of whose practice he forewarns the Christians that they suffer not themselves to be deceiv'd by the worshipping of Angels Now by these authorities it is plain that it can at least be no duty to worship Angels and therefore they that do it not cannot be blamed but if these words mean here as they do in all other places there is at least great danger to do it 4 And of the like danger is Invocation of Saints which if it be no more than a meer desire to them to pray for us why is it express'd in their publick Offices in words that differ not from our Prayers to God if it be more it creates in us or is apt to create in us confidence in the creatures it relies upon that which S. Paul us'd as an argument against worship of Angels and that is intruding into those things we understand not for it pretends to know their present state which is hid from our eyes and it proceeds upon the very reason upon which the Gnosticks and the Valentinians went that is that it is fit to have mediators between God and us that we may present our prayers to them and they to God To which adde that the Church of Rome presenting Candles and other Donaries to the Virgin Mary as to the Queen of Heaven do that which the Collyridians did the gift is only differing as Candle and Cake Gold and Garments this vow or that vow All which being put together makes a dangerous Liturgy not like to the Worship and Devotion us'd in the Primitive Church but so like to what is forbidden in Scripture that it is much the worse The advantage got by these things cannot countervail the evil of the suspicion and the wit of them that do so cannot by a secure answer escape the force of a prohibition and therefore it were infinitely more safe to let it alone and to invocate and adore him only who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Father of the Aeönes the Father of Men and Angels and God through Jesus Christ and that answers all objections 5. What good does the worship of Images do to the souls of Christians What glory is done to God by being represented in little shapes and humane or phantastick figures What Scripture did ever command it what prophet did not reprove it Is it not in all appearance and grammatical and proper understanding of words forbidden by an express Commandment of God Is there any duty incumbent on us to do it Certainly all the arts of witty men of the Roman side are little enough and much too little to prove that it is lawful to make and worship them and the distinctions and elusions the tricks and artifices are so many that it is a great piece of impertinent learning to remember them and no small trouble to understand them and they that most need the distinctions that is the common people cannot use them and at the best it is very hard to think it lawful but very easie to understand that it is forbidden and most easie to be assur'd it is very innocent to let it alone Where an image is there is no religion said Lactantius and we ought rather to die than to pollute our faith with such impieties said Origen Now let us suppose that these fathers speak against the heathen superstition of worshipping the images of their gods Against these quotations us'd in the Preface of the first Part the Author of the Letter to a friend page 3. And the Author of Truth will out page 6. object that these Fathers speak against the worshipping of the images of heathen gods not of the use of images amongst Christians which cavil the Reader may see largely refuted in the Sect. Of Images certainly if it was a fault in them it is worse in Christians who have received so many Commands to the contrary and who are tied to worship the Father in spirit and in truth and were never permitted to worship him by an image And true it is that images are more fit for false gods than for the true God the Father of Spirits the superstition of images is more proportion'd to the Idolatry of false gods than to true religion and the worship of him whom eye hath not seen and cannot see nor heart can comprehend And it is a vain Elusion to say that these Fathers did not severely censure the use of images among Christians for all that time among the Christians there was no use of images at all in religion and for the very reasons by which they condemn'd the heathen superstition of image-worship for the same reasons they would never endure it at all amongst Christians But then if this be so highly criminal as these Ancient Fathers say I desire it may be consider'd for what pretended reasons the Church of Rome should not onely permit but allow and decree and urge the use of images in their religious adorations If it be onely for instruction of the Laity that might be better supplied by Catechisings and frequent Homilies and if instruction be intended then the single Statues are less useful but Histories and Hieroglyphicks are to be painted upon Tables and in them I suppose there would be less temptation of doing abomination But when the images simple or mixt are painted or carved the people must be told what their meaning is and then they will not need such books who may with less danger learn their lesson by heart and besides this they are told strange stories of the Saints whose images they see and of the images themselves that represent the Saints and then it may be these Lay-mens books may teach them things that they must unlearn again But yet if they be useful for instruction what benefit is done to our spirits by giving them adoration That God will accept it as an honour done to himself he hath no where told us and he seems often to have told us the contrary and if it be possible by mans wit to acquit this practice from being what the prophets so highly reprove spiritual whoredom in giving Gods due to an image yet it can never be prov'd to be a part of that worshipping of God in spirit and in truth which he requires And though it would never have been believed in Origen's Tertullian's or Lactantius's days that ever there would arise a sort of Christians that should contend earnestly for the worshipping images or that ever the heathen way of worship viz. of what they call'd God by an image should become a great part of Christianity or that a Council of Bishops should decree the worship of images as an article of faith or that they should think men should be damned for denying worship to images yet after all this when it is considered that the worshipping of images by Christians is so great a scandal to the Indians that they think themselves justified in
images in rich apparel and by pretending to make them nod their head to twinkle the eyes and even to speak the world is too much satisfied Some such things as these and the superstitious talkings and actings of their Priests made great impressions upon my Neighbours in Ireland and they had such a deep and religious veneration for the image of our Lady of Kilbrony that a worthy Gentleman who is now with God and knew the deep superstition of the poor Irish did not distrain upon his Tenants for his rents but carried away the image of the female Saint of Kilbrony and instantly the Priest took care that the Tenants should redeem the Lady by a punctual and speedy paying of their rents for they thought themselves Unblessed as long as the image was away and therefore they speedily fetch'd away their Ark from the house of Obededom and were afraid that their Saint could not help them when her image was away Now if S. Paul would have Christians to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols to avoid the giving offence to weak brethren much more ought the Church to avoid tempting all the weak people of her Communion to idolatry by countenancing and justifying and imposing such acts which all their heads can never learn to distinguish from idolatry I end this with a memorial out of the Councils of Sens and Mentz C. 14. who command moneri populum ne imagines adorent C. 41. apud Bellarmin lib. 2. de imag S. S. c. 22. Sect. Secunda propositio The Preachers were commanded to admonish the people that they should not adore images And for the Novelty of the practice here in the British Churches it is evident in Ecclesiastical story that it was introduc'd by a Synod of London about the year 714. under Bonifacius the Legat and Bertualdus Archbishop of Dover and that without disputation or inquiry into the lawfulness or unlawfulness of it but wholly upon the account of a vision pretended to be seen by Eguinus Bishop of Worcester the Virgin Mary appearing to him and commanding that her image should be set in Churches and worshipped That Austin the Monk brought with him the banner of the Cross and the image of Christ Beda tells and from him Baronius and Binius affirms that before this vision of Egwin the cross and image of Christ were in use but that they were at all worshipped or ador'd Beda saith not and there is no record no monument of it before this Hypochondrical dream of Egwin and it further appears to be so A. D. circitâ—r 792. because Albinus or Alcuinus an English-man Master of Charles the Great when the King had sent to Offa the book of C. P. for the worship of images wrote an Epistle against it ex authoritate-Divina scripturarum mir abiliter affirmatum and brought it to the King of France in the name of our Bishops and Kings Annal. part 1. saith Hovedon SECTION VII Of Picturing God the Father and the Holy Trinity AGainst all the authorities almost which are or might be brought to prove the Unlawfulness of Picturing God the Father or the Holy Trinity the Roman Doctors generally give this one answer That the Fathers intended by their sayings to condemn the picturing of the Divine Essence but condemn not the picturing of those symbolical shapes or forms in which God the Father or the Holy Ghost or the Blessed Trinity are supposed to have appeared To this I reply 1. That no man ever intended to paint the essence of any thing in the world A man cannot well understand an Essence and hath no Idea of it in his mind much less can a Painters Pensil do it And therefore it is a vain and impertinent discourse to prove that they do ill who attempt to paint the Divine Essence Vide Plutarch de Iside Osir. This is a subterfuge which none but men out of hope to defend their opinion otherwise can make use of 2. To picture God the Father in such symbolical forms in which he appear'd is to picture him in no form at all for generally both the Schools of the Jews and Christians consent in this that God the Father never appear'd in his person for as S. Paul affirms he is the invisible God whom no eye hath seen or can see He always appeared by Angels or by fire or by storm and tempest by a cloud or by a still voice he spake by his Prophets and at last by his Son but still the adorable majesty was reserved in the secrets of his glory 3. The Church of Rome paints the Holy Trinity in forms and symbolical shapes in which she never pretends the Blessed Trinity did appear as in a face with three Noses and four Eyes one body with three heads and as an old man with a great beard and a Popes Crown upon his head and holding the two ends of the transverse rafter of the Cross with Christ leaning on his breast and the Holy Spirit hovering over his head And therefore they worship the images of God the Father the Holy Trinity figures which as is said of Remphan and the Heathen Gods and Goddesses themselves have made which therefore must needs be idols by their own definition of idolum sâ—mulachrum rei non existentis for never was there seen any such of the Holy Trinity in Unity as they most impiously represent And if when any thing is spoken of God in Scripture allegorically they may of it make an image to God they would make many more Monsters than yet they have found out For as Durandus * In 3. sent dist 9. q. 2. n. 15. well observes If any one shall say that because the Holy Ghost appeared in the shape of a Dove and the Father in the old Testament under the Corporal forms that therefore they may be represented by images we must say to this that those corporal forms were not assumed by the Father and the Holy Spirit and therefore a representation of them by images is not a representation of the Divine person but a representation of that form or shape alone Therefore there is no reverence due to it as there is none due to those forms by themselves Neither were these forms to represent the Divine persons but to represent those effects which those Divine persons did effect And therefore there is one thing more to be said to them that do so Rom. 1. 23. They have chang'd the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a mortal man Now how will the Reader imagine that the Dissuasive is confuted and his testimonies from Antiquity answered Pag. 60. Why most clearly E. W. saith that one principle of S. John Damascen doth it it solves all that the Doctor hath or can alledge in this matter Well! what is this principle The words are these and S. Austin points at the same Quisnam est qui invisibilis corpore vacantis ac circumscriptionis figurae
discourse many excellent things to this purpose as that a man is the only image of God Jesus Christ is the perfect image of his Glory and he only represents his essence and man is made in the likeness of God and therefore he also in a less perfect manner represents God Besides these if any man desires to see God let him look in the book of the creature and all the world is the image and lively representment of Gods power and his wisdom his goodness and his bounty But to represent God in a carved stone or a painted Table does depauperate our understanding of God and dishonours him below the Painters art for it represents him lovely only by that art and therefore less than him that painted it But that which Athanasius adds is very material and gives great reason of the Command why God should severely forbid any image of himself Calamitati enim tryannidi servientes homines Unicum illud est nulli Communicabile Dei nomen lignis lapidibusque imposuerunt Some in sorrow for their dead children made their images and fancied that presence some desiring to please their tyrannous Princes put up their statues and at distance by a phantastical presence flattered them with honours And in process of time these were made Gods and the incommunicable name was given to wood and stones Not that the Heathens thought that image to be very God but that they were imaginarily present in them and so had their Name Hujusmodi igitur initiis idolorum inventio Scriptura teste apud homines coepit Thus idolatry began saith the Scripture and thus it was promoted and the event was they made pitiful conceptions of God they confined his presence to a statue they worshipped him with the lowest way imaginable they descended from all spirituality and the noble ways of Understanding and made wood and stone to be as it were a body to the Father of Spirits they gave the incommunicable name not only to dead men and Angels and Daemons but to the images of them and though it is great folly to picture Angelical Spirits and dead Heroes whom they never saw yet by these steps when they had come to picture God himself this was the height of the Gentile impiety and is but too plain a representation of the impiety practised by too many in the Roman Church But as we proceed further the case will be yet clearer Concerning the testimony of Eusebius I wonder that any writer of Roman controversies should be ignorant and being so should confidently say Eusebius hath nothing to this purpose viz. to condemn the picturing of God Synod 7. act 6. when his words are so famous that they are recorded in the seventh Synod and the words were occasioned by a solemn message sent to Eusebius by the sister of Constantius and wife of Licinius lately turned from being Pagan to be Christian desiring Eusebius to send her the picture of our Lord Jesus to which he answers Quia vero de quadam imagine quasi Christi scripsisti hanc volens tibi à nobis mitti quam dicis qualèm hanc quam perhibes Christi imaginem Utrum veram incommutabilem natura characteres suos portantem An istam quam propter nos suscepit servi formae schemate circumamictus Sed de forma quidem Dei nec ipse arbitror te quaerere semel ab ipso edoctam quoniam neque patrem quis novit nisi filius neque ipsum filium novit quis aliquando digne nisi solus pater qui eum genuit And a little after Quis ergo hujusmodi dignitatis gloriae vibrantes praefulgentes splendores exarare potuisset mortuis inanimatis Coloribus scripturis Umbraticis And then speaking of the glory of Christ in Mount Thabor he proceeds Ergo si tunc incarnata ejus forma tantam virtutem sortita est ab inhabitante in se Divinitate mutata quid oportet dicere cum mortalitate exutus corruptione ablutus speciem servilis formae in gloriam Domini Dei commutavit Where besides that Eusebius thinks it unlawful to make a picture of Christ and therefore consequently much more to make a picture of God he also tells Constantia he supposes she did not offer at any desire of that Well for these three of the Fathers we are well enough but for the rest the objector says that they speak only against representing God as in his own essence shape or form To this I answer that God hath no shape or form and therefore these Fathers could not speak against making images of a thing that was not and as for the images of his essence no Christian no Heathen ever pretended to it and no man or beast can be pictured so No Painter can paint an Essence And therefore although this distinction was lately made in the Roman Schools yet the Fathers knew nothing of it and the Roman Doctors can make nothing of it for the reasons now told But the Gentleman saith that some of their Church allow only and practise the picturing those forms wherein God hath appeared It is very well they do no more but I pray in what forms did God the Father ever appear or the Holy and Mysterious Trinity Or suppose they had does it follow they may be painted We saw but now out of Eusebius that it was not esteemed lawful to picture Christ though he did appear in a humane body And although it is supposed that the Holy Ghost did appear in the shape of a Dove Concil â— P. Caâ— 82. yet it is forbidden by the sixth General Council to paint Christ like a Lamb or the Holy Spirit like a Dove Add to this where did ever the Holy and Blessed Trinity appear like three faces joyned in one or like an old man with Christ crucified leaning on his breast and a Dove hovering over them and yet however the objector is pleas'd to mince the matter yet the doing this is ubique inter Catholicos recepta and that not only to be seen but to be ador'd as I prov'd a little above by testimonies of their own The next charge is concerning S. Hierom that he says no such thing which matter will soon be at an end if we see the Commentary he makes on these words of Isaiah Cui ergo similem fecisti Deum In Cap. 40. Isai. To whom do you liken God Aâ—t quam imaginem ponetis ei qui spiritus est in omnibus est ubique discurrit terram quasi pugillo continet Simulque irridet stultitiam nationum quod artifex sive Faber aerarius aut auriâ—ex aâ—t argentarius Deum sibi faciant Or what image will ye make for him who is a Spirit and is in all things and runs every where and holds the earth in his fist And he laughs at the folly of the nations that an Artist or a Brasier or a Goldsmith or a Silversmith makes a God
is on our part God will not fail on his And this infallibility is just like to what is signified by what God promised to Joshua I will never leave thee nor forsake thee Josh. 1. 5. 7. only be thou strong and very couragious that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law Nothing was more certain than that Joshua should be infallibly conducted into the land of promise and yet it was required of him to be couragious and to keep all the Law of Moses and because Joshua did so the promise had an infallibility hic nunc And so it is in the finding out the truths of God so said our Blessed Saviour If ye love me keep my Commandements and I will pray to the Father Joh. 14. 15 16 17. and he shall give you another Comforter that he may abide with you for ever the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive If we open our eyes if we suffer not a Vail to be over them if we inquire with diligence and simplicity and if we live well we shall be infallibly directed and upon the same termes it is infallibly certain that every man shall be saved And the Gospel is not hid but to them that are lost saith the Apostle in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ who is the image of God should shine unto them So that it is certain that in things necessary a man need not be deceiv'd unless he be wanting to himself and therefore hic nunc he is infallible But if a man will lay aside his reason and will not make use of it if he resolves to believe a proposition in defiance of all that can be said against it if when he sees reason against his proposition he will call it a temptation which is like being hardned by miracles and slighting a truth because it is too well prov'd to him if he will not trust the instruments of knowledge that God gives him if he sets his face against his reason and think it meritorious to distrust his sense and seeing will not see and hearing he will not understand And all this is every day done in the Church of Rome then there is nothing so certain but it becomes to him uncertain and it is no wonder if he be given over to believe a lie It is not confidence that makes a man infallibly certain for then I. S. were the most infallible person in the world but the way to make our calling and election sure is to work out our salvation with fear and trembling Modesty is the way to knowledge and by how much more a man fears to be deceiv'd by so much the more will he walk circumspectly and determine warily and take care he be not deceiv'd but he that thinks he cannot be deceived but that he is infallible as he is the more liable to error because by this suppos'd infallibility he is tempted to a greater inconsideration so if he be deceived his recovery is the more desperate And I desire that it be here observ'd that it is one thing to say I cannot be deceiv'd and another to say I am sure I am not deceiv'd For the first no man can say but the latter every wise and good man may say if he please That every man is certain of very many things is evident by all the experience of mankind and in many things this certainty is equivalent to an infallibility that is hic nunc And that relys upon this ground for I must be careful to go upon grounds for fear of I. S. his displeasure Quicquid est quamdiu est necesse est esse while a truth prevailes and is invested with the whole complexion of assisting circumstances it is an actual infallibility that is such a certainty cui falsum subesse non potest for else no man could tell certainly and infallibly when he is hungry or thirsty awake or weary when he hath committed a sin against God or when he hath told a lie and he that says a fallible Christian is not infallibly certain that it is a good thing to say his prayers and to put his trust in God and to do good works knows not what he says But besides this it were well if I. S. would consider what kind of certainty God requires of us in our faith for I hope I. S. will then require no more Our faith is not Science and yet it is certainty and if the assent be accoring to the whole design of it and effects all it's purposes and the intention of God it cannot be accepted though the wayes of begetting that faith be not demonstrative arguments There had but five or six persons seen Christ after his resurrection and yet he was pleas'd to reprove their unbelief because the Disciples did not believe those few who said they had seen him alive Faith is the foundation of good life and if a man believes so certainly that he is willing to live in it and die for it God requires no more and there is no need of more and if a little thing did not do that what shall become of those innumerable multitudes of Christians who believe upon grounds which a learned man knows are very weak but yet are to those people as good as the best because they are not only the best they have but they are sufficient to do their work for them Nay God is so good and it is so necessary in some affairs to proceed so that a man may be certain he does well though in the proposition or subject matter he be deceiv'd Is not a Judge infallibly certain that he does his duty and proceeds wisely if he gives sentence Secundum allegata probata though he be not infallibly certain that the witnesses depose truth Was not S. Paul in the right and certainly so when he said it was better for the present necessity if a Virgin did not marry and yet he had no revelation and no oral infallible tradition for it this speak I saith he not the Lord and he did not talk confidently of his grounds but said modestly I think I have the Spirit of God and yet all Christians believe that what he then said was infallibly enough true We see here through a glass darkly saith the Apostle and yet we see and what we see we may be certain of I mean we Protestants may indeed the Papists may not for they denying what they see call bread a God so that they do not so much as see darkly they see not at all or what is as bad they will not believe the thing to be that which their eyes and three senses more tell them that it is But is a wonder that they who dare not trust their senses should talk of being infallible in their argument And now to apply this to the charge I. S. lays on me Because I do not
Fathers but as he is a witness no man hath reason to take his word But to the thing in question Whatever we Protestants think or say yet I. S. saith our constant and avowed doctrine meaning of the Church of Rome is that the testimony of Fathers speaking of them properly as such is infallible If this be the avowed doctrine of the Roman Church then I shall prove that one of the avowed doctrines of that Church is false And secondly I shall also prove that many of the most eminent Doctors of the Church are not of that mind and therefore it is not the constant doctrine as indeed amongst them few doctrines are 1. It is false that the Testimony of the Fathers speaking of them properly as such is infallible For God only is true and every man a lyar and since the Fathers never pretended to be assisted by a supernatural miraculous aide or inspired by an infallible spirit and infallibility is so far beyond humane nature and industry that the Fathers may be called Angels much rather than infallible for if they were assisted by an infallible spirit what hinders but that their writings might be Canonical Scriptures And if it be said they were assisted infallibly in some things and not in all it is said to no purpose for unless it be infallibly known where the infallibility resides and what is so certain as it cannot be mistaken every man must tread fearfully for he is sure the Ice is broken in many places and he knows not where it will hold It is certain S. Austin did not think the Fathers before him to be infallible when it is plain that in many doctrines as in the damnation of infants dying Unbaptiz'd and especially in questions occurring in the disputes against the Pelagians about free will and predestination without scruple he rejected the doctrines of his predecessors And when in a question between himself and S. Hierom about S. Peter and the second chapter to the Galatians he was press'd with the authority of six or seven Greek Fathers he roundly answered that he gave no such honour to any writers of books but to the Scriptures only as to think them not to have erred Ep. S. Aug. ad Hierom. quâ— est 19. Inter operâ— Hierom. 97. multiâ—â—liis locis other Authors he read so as to believe them if they were prov'd by Scriptures or probable reason Not because they thought so but because he thought them prov'd And he appeals to S. Hierom whether he were not of the same minde concerning his own works And for that S. Hierom hath given satisfaction to the world in divers places of his own writings * S. Hierom. l. 2. apelog contr Ruff Epist. 62. ad Theoph. Alex Epist. 65 ad Pammach Ocean Epist. 76. ad Tranquil epist. 13. ad Paulinum praefat in lib. de Hebr. nomin I suppose Origen is for his learning to be read as Tertullian Novatus Arnobius Apollinarius and some writers Greek and Latin that we chuse out that which is good and avoid the contrary So that it is evident the Fathers themselves have no conceit of the infallibility of themselves or others the Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists only excepted and therefore if this be an avowed doctrine of the Roman Church there is no oral tradition for it no first and self evident principle to prove it and either the Fathers are deceiv'd in saying they are fallible or they are not If they be deceiv'd in saying so then that sufficiently proves that they can be deceiv'd and therefore that they are not infallible but if they be not deceiv'd in saying that they are fallible then it is certain that they are fallible because they say they are and in saying so are not deceiv'd But then if in this the Fathers are not deceiv'd then the Church of Rome in one of her avowed doctrines is deceiv'd saying otherwise of the Fathers than is true and contrary to what themselves said of themselves But 2. If it be the avowed doctrine of the Church of Rome as I. S. says it is yet I am sure it is not their constant doctrine Certain it is S. Austin was not infallible for he retracted some things he had said and in Gratians time neither S. Austin nor any of the Fathers were esteemed infallible and this appears in nine chapters together of the ninth distinction of Gratians decree Dist. 9. Decret cap. Nolo meis but because this truth was too plain to serve the interest of the following ages the gloss upon cap. Nolo meis tells us plainly that this was to be understood according to those times when the works of S. Austin and of the other holy Fathers were not authentic but now all of them are commanded to be held to the last title and a marginal note upon the gloss says Scripta Sanctorum sunt ad unguem observanda So that here is plain variety and no constant oral tradition from S. Austins time downwards that his and the fathers writings were infallible till Gratians time it was otherwise and after him till the gloss was written It is as Solomon says There is a time for every thing under the Sun There is a time in which the writings of the Fathers are authentic and a time in which they are not But then this is not setled no constant business Now I would fain know whether Gratian spake the sense of the Church of his age or no If no then the Fathers were of one mind and the Church of his age of a contrary and then which of them was infallible But if yea then how comes the present Church to be of another mind now And which of the two ages that contradict each other hath got the ball which of them carries the infallibility Well! however it come to pass yet the truth is I. S. does wrong to his own Church and they never decreed or affirm'd the Fathers to be infallible And therefore the Glossator upon Gratian was an ignorant man and his gloss ridiculous Ecce quales sunt decretorum glossatores quibus tanta fides adhibetur said A. Castor and Duns Scotus gave a good character of them Mittunt remittunt tandem nihil ad propositum But the mistake of this ignorant Glossator is apparent to be upon the account of the words of Gelasius in dist 15. cap. Sancta Rom. Eccl. where when he had reckon'd divers of the Fathers writings which the Church receives he hath these words Item Epistola B. Leonis Papae ad Flavianum Episcopum C. P. destinatum cujus textum aut unum iota si quisquam idiota disputaverit non eam in omnibus venerabiliter acceperit anathema fit Now although this reaches not neer to infallibility but only to a non disputare and a venerabiliter accipere and that by idiots only and therefore can do I. S. no service yet this which Gelasius speaks of S. Leo's Epistle to Flavianus the
Alexandria defines the Church to be Clem. Alex. strom lib. pag. 715. edit Paris A. D. 1629. the Congregation of the Elect. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the Church I do not mean the place but the gathering or heap of the Elect for this is the better Temple for the receiving the greatness of the dignity of God For that living thing which is of great price to him who is worthy of all price yea to whose price nothing is too great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is consecrated by the excellency of holiness But more full is that of Saint Austin De Papt contr Donatist lib. â— cap 51. 52. who spends two chapters in affirming that onely they who serve God faithfully are the Church of God The temple of God is holy which Temple ye are For this is in the good and faithful and the holy servants of God scattered every where and combin'd by a spiritual union in the same communion of Sacraments whether they know one another by face or no. Others it is certain are so said to be in the House of God that they do not pertain to the structure of the house nor to the society of fructifying and peace-making justice but are as chaff in the wheat For we cannot deny that they are in the house the Apostle Paul saying That in a great house there are not onely vessels of gold and silver but wood and earth some for honour and some for dishonour And a little before I do not speak rashly when I say Some are so in the house of God that they also are that very house of God which is said to be built upon a rock which is called the onely dove the fair spouse without spot or wrinkle the garden shut up a fountain sealed a pit of living water a fruitful paradise This is the house which hath received the Keys and the power of loosing and binding whosoever shall despise this house reproving and correcting him he saith let him be as an heathen and a Publican And then he proceeds to describe who are this house by the characters of sanctity S. Aug. lib. 2. câ—ntâ— Cresâ—n cap. 21. vide eund lib. â— contr Petâ— cap. ult l. â— de bapt cap. 3. l. 6. c. 3. of charity and unity Propter malam pollutámque conscientiam damnati à Christo jam in corpore Christi non sunt quod est Ecclesia quoniam non potest Christus habere damnata membra Those who are condemned by Christ for their evil and polluted consciences are not in Christs body which is the Church for Christ hath no damned members And this besides that it is expressly taught in the Augustan Confession Mali quidem sunt in Ecclesiâ— sed non de Ecclesiâ quia mali non suâ—t de regnâ—â— ei sed de regn Diaboli Vide etiam Gregor M. lib. 28. Moral c 9. it is also the Doctrine of divers Roman Doctors that wicked men are not true members of the body of the Church but equivocally So Alexander of Hales Hugo and Aquinas as they are quoted by Turrecremata so Petrus à Soto Melchior Canus Lib. 1. cap. 57. apud B. ll l. 3. cap. 9. De Ecclesiâ milâ—tante and others as Bellarmine himself confesses so that if it be said that evil men are in the Church it is true but they are not of the Church as S. John's expression is for if they had been of us they would have tarried with us which words seem to be of the same sense with those Fathers who affirm the Church to be The number of the predestinate whom God loves to the end But however the wicked are onely in the body of the Church Tract 3. in Epist. Johan Bellar. ubi suprà Sect. Idem Augustinus as peccant humours and excrements and hair and putrefaction so said S. Austin as Bellarmine quotes him and the same thing in almost the same words is set down by * Coster ap logpro parte 3â— Enchirid. c. 12. Sect. Qui non Coster the Jesuit and when Bellarmine attempts to answer this saying of S. Austin he says he means that the wicked are not in the Church in the same manner as the godly are that is not as living members which though it be put in the place of an Answer to amuse the young fellows that are captivated with the admirable method of Ob. and Sol. yet it plainly confesses the point in question viz. that the wicked are not members of Christs body and if they be not then to them belong not the Privileges and Promises which God gave and promised to his Church for they were given for the sake of the Saints onely Ibid. Sect. Respondeo Augustiâ—um saith S. Austin and Bellarmine confesses it But I need not be digging the Cisterns for this truth Christ himself hath taught it to us very plainly Joh. 15. 14. Joh. 14. 21. Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you not upon any other terms and I hope none but friends are parts of Christs mystical body members of the Church whereof he is head and the onely condition of this ver 15. is if we do whatsoever Christ commands us And that this very blessing and promise of knowing and understanding the will of God appertains onely to the godly Christ declares in the very next words Henceforth I call you not servants for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doth but I have called you friends for all things I have heard from my Father I have made known unto you So that being the friends of God is the onely way to know the will of God None are infallible but they that are holy and they shall certainly be directed by Christ and the Spirit of Christ. Joh. 7 17. If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of my self said our Blessed Lord. And S. John 1 Joh. 2. 27. said Ye have received the unction from above and that anointing teacheth you all things The Spirit of God is the great teacher of all truth to the Church but they that grieve the holy Spirit of God they that quench the Spirit they that defile his Temple from these men he will surely depart That he shall abide with men unto the end of the world is a promise not belonging to them but to them that keep his Commandments The external parts of Religion may be ministred by wicked persons and by wicked persons may be received but the secrets of the Kingdom the spiritual excellencies of the Gospel that is truth and holiness a saving and an unreprovable faith and an indefectible love to be United to Christ and to be members of his body these are the portions of Saints not of wicked persons whether Clergy or Laity The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom Prov. 10. 31. and the lips of the righteous know what is acceptable said
words of Scripture and the Apostles Creed for a sufficient rule of their faith but are threatned with damnation if they do not believe whatever their Church hath determin'd and yet they neither do nor can know it but by the word of their Parish Priest or Confessor it lies in the hand of every Parish Priest to make the People believe any thing and be of any religion and trust to any Article as they shall choose and find to their purpose The Council of Trent requires Traditions to be added and received equal with Scriptures they both not singly but in conjunction making up the full object of faith and so the most learned and indeed generally their whole Church understands one to be incomplete without the other and yet Master White who I suppose tells the same thing to his Neighbours affirms that it is not the Catholick position That all its doctrines are not contain'd in Scripture which proposition being tied with the decree of the Council of Trent gives a very good account of it and makes it excellent sense Thus Traditions must be receiv'd with equal authority to the Scripture saith the Council and wonder not for saith Master White all the Traditions of the Church are in Scripture You may believe so if you please for the contrary is not a Catholick doctrine But if these two things do not agree better then it will be hard to tell what regard will be had to what the Council says the People know not that but as their Priest teaches them And though they are bound under greatest pains to believe the whole Catholick Religion yet that the Priests themselves do not know it or wilfully mis-report it and therefore that the people cannot tell it it is too evident in this instance and in the multitude of disputes which are amongst themselves about many considerable Articles in their Catholick religion Vide Wadding of Immac oncept p. 282. p. 334. alibi Pius Quintus speaking of Thomas Aquinas calls his doctrine the most certain rule of Christian religion And divers particulars of the religion of the Romanists are prov'd out of the revelations of S. Briget which are contradicted by those of S. Katherine of Siena Now they not relying on the way of God fall into the hands of men who teach them according to the interest of their order or private fancy and expound their rules by measures of their own but yet such which they make to be the measures of salvation and damnation They are taught to rely for their faith upon the Church and this when it comes to practise is nothing but their private Priest and he does not always tell them the sense of their Church and is not infallible in declaring the sense of it and is not always as appears in the instance now set down faithful in relating of it but first consens himself by his subtilty and then others by his confidence and therefore in is impossible there can be any certainty to them that proceed this way when God hath so plainly given them a better and requires of them nothing but to live a holy life as a superstructure of Christian Faith describ'd by the Apostles in plain places of Scripture and in the Apostolical Creed in which they can suffer no illusion and where there is no Uncertainty in the matters to be believ'd IV. The next thing I observe is that they all talking of the Church as of a charm and sacred Amulet yet they cannot by all their arts make us certain where or how infallibly to find this Church I have already in this Section prov'd this in the main Inquiry by shewing that the Church is that body which they do not rely upon but now I shall shew that the Church which they would point out can never be certainly known to be the true Church by those indications and signs which they offer to the world as her characteristick notes S. Austin in his excellent Book De Vnitate Ecclesiae Lib. de Vnit. Eccles. cap. cap. 17. Ergo in Scripturis Canonicis eam Ecclesiam requiramus cap. 3. affirms that the Church is no whereto be found but in Praescripto legis in prophetarum praedictis in Psalmorum cantibus in ipsius Pastoris vocibus in Evangelistarum praedicationibus laboribus hoc est in omnibus Sanctorum canonicis authoritatibus in the Scriptures only And he gives but one great note of it and that is adhering to the head Jesus Christ for the Church is Christ's body who by charity are united to one another and to Christ their Head and he that is not a member of Christ cannot obtain salvation And he adds no other mark but that Christ's Church is not this or that viz. not of one denomination but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dispersed over the face of the earth The Church of Rome makes adhesion to the head Bellarm. de Eccles Militant lib. 3. cap. Sect. Nostra autem Sententia not Jesus Christ but the Bishop of Rome to be of the essential constitution of the Church Now this being the great Question between the Church of Rome and the Greek Church and indeed of all other Churches of the world is so far from being a sign to know the Church by that it is apparent they have no ground of their Faith but the great Question of Christendom and that which is condemn'd by all the Christian world but themselves is their foundation And this is so much the more considerable because concerning very many Heads of their Church it was too apparent that they were not so much as members of Christ but the basest of Criminals and Enemies of all godliness And concerning others that were not so notoriously wicked they could not be certain that they were members of Christ or that they were not of their Father the Devil The spirit of truth was promis'd to the Apostles upon condition and Judas fell from it by transgression But the uncertainties are yetgreater Adhering to the Pope cannot be a certain note of the Church because no man can be certain who is true Pope For the Pope if he be a Simoniac is ipso facto no Pope as appears in the Bull of Julius the 2d And yet besides that he himself was called a most notorious Simoniac Sixtus Quintus gave an obligation under his hand upon condition that the Cardinal d'Este would bring over his voices to him and make him Pope that he would never make Hierom Matthew a Cardinal which when he broke the Cardinal sent his Obligation to the King of Spain who intended to accuse him of Simony but it broke the Pope's heart and so he escaped here and was reserved to be heard before a more Unerring Judicatory And when Pius Quartus used all the secret arts to dissolve the Council of Trent and yet not to be seen in it and to that purpose dispatch'd away the Bishops from Rome he forbad the Archbishop of
viduiâ—aâ— cap. 1. The Scripture is the consummation or utmost bounded rule of our doctrine that we may not dare to be wiser than we ought And that not only in the Question of widdow-hood but in all questions which belong unto life and manners of living as himself in the same place declares And it is not only for Laics and vulgar persons but for all men and not only for what is merely necessary 2. Tim. 3. but to make us wise to make us perfect Salmeron in hunâ— locum tom 15. p. 607. vide plura apud eandem p. 606. saith the Apostle And how can this man say that the Scriptures makes a man perfect in justice And he that is perfect in justice needs no more revelation which words are well enlarged by S. Cyril The Divine Scripture is sufficient to make them who are educated in it wise and most approv'd Cyril Alex. l. 7. contr Julian and having a most sufficient understanding And to this we need not any forraign teachers But lastly if in the plain words of Scripture be contained all that is simply necessary to all then it is clear by Bellarmine's confession that S. Austin affirm'd that the plain places of Scripture are sufficient to all Laics and all Ideots or private persons and then as it is very ill done to keep them from the knowledge and use of the Scriptures which contain all their duty both of faith and good life so it is very unnecessary to trouble them with any thing else there being in the world no such treasure and repository of faith and manners and that so plain that it was intended for all men and for all such men is sufficient S. August ser. 38. ad fratres in eremâ— Read the holy Scriptures wherein you shall find some things to be holden and some to be avoided This was spoken to the Monks and Brethren in the Desert and to them that were to be guides of others the pastors of the reasonable flock and in that whole Sermon he enumerates the admirable advantages fulness and perfection of the Holy Scriptures out of which themselves are to be taught and by the fulness of which they are to teach others in all things I shall not be troublesome by adding those many clear testimonies from other of the Fathers But I cannot omit that of Anastasius of Antioch It is manifest that these things are not to be inquir'd into Lib. 8. anagogicâ— contempt in Hexameron which the Scripture hath pass'd over in silence For the Holy Spirit hath dispensed and administred to us all things which conduce to our profit De vocaâ— gentium in 2. tem operum S. Ambros l. 2. c. 3. If the Scriptures be silent who will speak said S. Prosper what things we are ignorant of from them we learn said Theodoret a In 2. tâ—m 3. in illud ad docenduâ— and there is nothing which the Scriptures deny to dissolve said Theophylact b Ibidem And the former of these brings in the Christian saying to Eranistes c Dial. 1. Tell not me of your Logisms and Syllogisms I rely upon Scripture only But Rupertus Tuitiensis d Commenâ— in â—ib Regum lib. 3. c. 12. his words are a fit conclusion to this heap of testimonies Whatsoever is of the word of God whatsoever ought to be known and preach'd of the Incarnation of the true Divinity and humanity of the Son of God is so contain'd in the two Testaments that besides these there is nothing ought to be declar'd or believ'd The whole coelestial Oracle is comprehended in these which we ought so firmly to know that besides these it is not lawful to hear either Man or Angel And all these are nothing else but a full subscription to and an excellent commentary upon those words of S. Paul Let no man pretend to be wise above what is written By the concourse of these testimonies of so many Learned Orthodox and Ancient Fathers we are abundantly confirm'd in that rule and principle upon which the whole Protestant and Christian Religion is established From hence we learn all things and by these we prove all things and by these we confute Heresies and prove every Article of our Faith according to this we live and on these we ground our hope and whatsoever is not in these we reject from our Canon And indeed that the Canonical Scriptures should be our only and intire Rule we are sufficiently convinc'd by the title which the Catholick Church gives and always hath given to the holy Scriptures for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Rule of Christians for their whole Religion The word it self ends this Enquiry for it cannot be a Canon if any thing be put to it or taken from it said a lib. 1. contr Eunom S. Basil b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Chrysost. Hom. 12. In 3. Philip. Idem dixit Theophyl S. Chrysostome and c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Varinus Varinus I hope I have competently prov'd the tradition I undertook and by it that the holy Scriptures contain all things that are necessary to salvation The sum is this If tradition be not regardable then the Scriptures alone are but if it be regarded then here is a full Tradition That the Scriptures are a perfect rule for that the Scriptures are the word of God and contain in them all the word of God in which we are concern'd is deliver'd by a full consent of all these and many other Fathers and no one Father denies it which consent therefore is so great that if it may not prevail the topick of Tradition will be of no use at all to them who would fain adopt it into a part of the Canon But this I shall consider more particularly Onely one thing more I am to adde Concerning the interpretation and finding out the sense and meaning of the Scriptures For though the Scriptures be allowed to be a sufficient repository of all that is necessary to salvation yet we may mistake our way if we have not some infallible Judge of their sense To him therefore that shall ask How we shall interpret and understand the Scriptures I shall give that answer which I have learned from those Fathers whose testimony I have alleged to prove the fulness and sufficiency of Scripture For if they were never so full yet if it be fons signatus and the waters of salvation do not issue forth to refresh the souls of the weary full they may be in themselves but they are not sufficient for us nor for the work of God in the salvation of man But that it may appear that the Scriptures are indeed written by the hand of God and therefore no way deficient from the end of their design God hath made them plain and easie to all people that are willing and obedient So S. Cyril Lib. 9. contr Julian Nihil in Scripturis difficile est iis qui in illis
versantur ut decet It is our own fault our prejudice our foolish expectations our carnal fancies our interests and partialities make the Scriptures difficult The Apostles did not would not could not understand their Master and Lord when he told them of his being put to death They look'd for some other thing and by that measure they would understand what was spoken and by nothing else But to them that are conversant in Scriptures as they ought nothing is difficult So S. Cyril That is nothing that is necessary for them to know nothing that is necessary to make us wise unto salvation which is the great end of man To this purpose are the words of S. Austin In Psal. 8. Inclinavit Deus Scripturas ad infantium lactentium Capacitatem God hath made the Scriptures to stoop to the Capacitie of babes and sucklings that so out of their mouths he may perfect praise Homil. primâ in Matth. And S. Chrysostom says that the Scriptures are faciles ad intelligendum prorsus expositae they are expounded and easie to be understood to the servant and the countrey-man to the widow and the boy and to him that is very unskilful Homil. 3. in 2 Thess. Omnia clara sunt plana in Divinis literis all things are clear and plain in the Divine writings All things that is saith S. Chrysostom Omnia necessaria aperta sunt manifesta All that is necessary is open and manifest 2. The Fathers say that in such things viz. in which our Salvation is concerned the Scriptures need no interpreter but a man may find them out himself by himself Apostoli verò Prophetae omnia contrà fecerunt manifesta claráque quae prodiderunt exposuerunt nobis veluti communes orbis Doctores Homil. 3. de Lazaro homil 3. in 2 Thess. ut per se quisque discere possit ea quae dicuntur ex solâ lectione So S. Chrysostom and therefore saith he what need is there of a Preacher All things are clear and plain out of the Divine Scriptures But ye seek for Preachers because you are nice and delicate and love to have your ears pleased To the same purpose are those words of S. Cyril Alex. Lib. 7. 〈◊〉 Julian The Divine Scripture is sufficient to make them who are educated in it wise and most approved and having a most sufficient understanding And to this we need not any foreign teachers There is no question but there are many places in the Divine Scriptures mysterious intricate and secret but these are for the learned not the ignorant for the curious and inquisitive not for the busied and imployed and simple they are not the repositories of salvation but instances of labour and occasions of humility and arguments of forbearance and mutual toleration and an indearment of reverence and adoration But all that by which God brings us to himself is plain and easie In S. Paul's Epistles S. Peter said there were some things hard to be understood but they were but quaedam some things there are enow besides which are very plain and easie and sufficient for the instruction and the perfecting the man of God S. Peter is indeed suppos'd to say that in S. Paul's Epistles some things were hard yet if we observe it rightly he does not relate to S. Paul's writings and way of expressing himself but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which relates to the mysterious matters contain'd in S. Paul's Epistles 2 Pet. 3. 16. of which S. Peter also there treats the mysteries were so deep and sublime so far remov'd from sense and humane experience that it is very hard for us poor ignorants to understand them without difficulty and constancy of labour and observation But then when such mysterious points occurre let us be wary and wise not hasty and decretory but fearful and humble modest and inquisitive S. Paul expressed those deep mysteries of the Coming of Christ to Judgement and the conflagration of the world as plainly as the things would easily bear and therefore the difficulty was not in the style but in the subject matter nor there indeed as they are in themselves so much as by the ignorance and instability or unsetledness of foolish people and although when things are easie there needs no interpreter but the very reading and observing and humility and diligence simplicity and holiness are the best expositors in the world yet when any such difficulty does occurre we have a guide sufficient to carry us as farre as we need or ought to go Therefore 3. The way of the Ancient and Primitive Church was to expound the Scriptures by the Scriptures So S. Clemens of Alexandria Stromat lib. 7. p. 757. 758. perfectly demonstrating out of the Scriptures themselves concerning themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Confirming every thing from those things which are demonstrated from the Scriptures out of those and the like Scriptures Contr. Gentil in initio To the same purpose are the words of S. Athanasius The knowledge of true and Divine religion and piety does not much need the Ministery of man and he might abundantly draw this forth from the Divine books and Letters S. Paul's way of teaching us to expound Scripture is that he that prophecies should do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the analogy of faith the fundamental proportions of faith are the measures by which we are to exact the sense and meaning of points more difficult and less necessary This way S. Clement urges in other expressions Truth is not found in the translation of significations Ubi suprà pag. 758. for so they might overthrow all true doctrine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in this that every one consider what is perfectly agreeable to our Lord the Almighty God and what is decent or fit to be said of him If we follow this way close our interpretations of Scripture can never be impious and can never lead into dangerous errour 4. In pursuance of this the Ancient Fathers took this way and taught us to do so too to expound difficult places by the plain Lib. 2. de doctr Christ. cap. 6. So S. Austin Magnificè salubritèr Spiritus Sanctus c. The Holy Spirit hath magnificently and wholsomly qualified the Holy Scriptures that in the more open or plainer places provision is made for our hunger viz. for our need and in the obscure there is nothing tedious or loathsom Nihil enim ferè de illis obscuritatibus eruit quod non planissimè dictum alibi reperiatur For there is scarce any thing drawn from those obscure places but the same in other places may be found spoken most plainly Bellarmine observes De verbo Dei l. 3. cap. 2. Sect. Respondeo iâ—pimis that S. Austin uses the word ferè almost meaning that though by plainer places most of the obscure places may be clear'd yet not all And truly it is very probable that S. Austin
at Nice they procur'd great authority to the Nicene faith which was not onely the truth but a truth deliver'd and confirm'd by the most famous and excellent Prelates that ever the Christian Church could glory in since the death of the Apostles But yet that the inconvenience might be cut off which came in upon the occasion of the Nicene addition for it produc'd thirty explicative Creeds more in a short time as Marcus Ephesius openly affirm'd in the Council of Florence in the Council of Ephesus which was the third general it was forbidden that ever there should be any addition to the Nicene faith Concil Ephes. Can. 7. That it should not be lawful from thence forward for any one to produce to write or to compose any other faith or Creed besides that which was defin'd by the Holy Fathers meeting at Nice in the Holy Spirit Here the supreme power of the Church a General Council hath declar'd that it never should be lawful to adde any thing to the former confession of faith explicated at Nice and this Canon was renewed in the next General Council that of Chalcedon That the faith formerly determin'd should at no hand in no manner be shaken or moved any more The Author of the Letter p. 7. meaning by addition or diminution There are some so impertinently weak as to expound these Canons to mean onely the adding any thing contrary to the Nicene faith which is an answer against reason and experience for it is not imaginable that any man admitting the Nicene Creed can by an addition intend expressly to contradict it and if he does not admit and believe it he would lay that Confession aside and not meddle with it but if he should design the inserting of a clause that should secretly undermine it he must suppose all men that see it to be very fools not to understand it or infinitely careless of what they believe and profess but if it should happen so then this were a very good reason of the prohibition of any thing whatsoever to be added lest secretly and undiscernably the first truth be confuted by the new article And therefore it was a wise caution to forbid all addition lest some may prove to be contrary And then secondly it is against the experience of things for first the Canon was made upon the occasion of a Creed brought into the Council by Charisius but all Creeds thereupon were rejected and the Nicene adhered to and commanded to be so for ever In Can. 7. vide Balsam in â—unâ— For as Balsamon observes there were three things done in this Canon 1. There was an Edict made in behalf of the things decreed at Ephesus 2. In like manner the holy Creed being made in the first Synod this Creed was read aloud and caution was given that no man should make any other Creed upon pain of deposition if he were an Ecclesiastick of excommunication if he were a Laick 3. The third thing he also thus expresses The same thing also is to be done to them who receive and teach the decrees of Nestorius So that the Creed that Charisius brought in was rejected because it was contrary to the Nicene faith but all Symbols were for ever after forbidden to be made not onely lest any thing contrary be admitted but because they would admit of no other and this very reason S. Athanasius assign'd why the Fathers of the Council of Sardis denyed the importunity of some Epist ad Epict. who would have something added to the Nicene confession they would not do it lest the other should seem defective And next to this it was carefully observed by the following Councils 4. 5. 6. and 7. and by it self in a great Affair for 1. though this Council determin'd the Blessed Virgin Mary to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God against Nestorius yet 2. the Fathers would not put the Article into the Creed of the Church but esteemed it sufficient to determine the point and condemn Nestorius And 3. the Greek Church hath ever since most religiously observ'd this Ephesine Canon And 4. upon this account have vehemently spoken against the Latines for adding a clause at Gentilly in France Epist ad Epict. 5. S. Athanasius speaking of the Nicene Faith or Creed says It is sufficient for the destruction of all impiety and for the confirmation of all the Holy Faith in Christ and therefore there could be no necessity of adding any thing to so full so perfect an Instrument and consequently no reasonable cause pretended why it should be attempted especially since there had been so many so intolerable inconveniencies already introduc'd by adding to the Symbols their unnecessary Expositions 6. The purpose of the Fathers is fully declar'd by the Epistle of S. Cyril Cyril Alex. ad Johan Antioch Sess. 5. in which he recites the Decree of the Council and adds as a full explication of the Council's meaning We permit neither our selves nor others to change one word or syllable of what is there The case is here as it was in Scripture to which no addition is to be made nothing to be diminished from it But yet every Doctor is permitted to expound to inlarge the expressions to deliver the sense and to declare as well as they can the meaning of it And much more might the Doctors of the Church do to the Creed To which although something was added at Nice and Constantinople yet from thence forward they might in private or in publick declare what they thought was the meaning and what were the consequents and what was virtually contain'd in the Articles but nothing of this by any authority whatsoever was to be put into the Creed For in Articles of Belief simplicity is part of it's excellency and sacredness and those mysteriousnesses and life-giving Articles which are fit to be put into Creeds are as Philistion said of Hellebore medicinal when it in great pieces but dangerous or deadly when it is in powder And I remember what a Heathen aid of the Emperour Constantius who troubled himself too much in curiosities and nice arguings about things Unintelligible and Unnecessary Christianam religionem absolutam simplicem anili superstitione confudit In qua scrutandâ perplexiùs quà m in componendâ graviùs excitavit dissidia quae progressa fusiùs aluit concertatione verborum dum ritum omnem ad suum trahere conatur arbitrium Christian Religion is absolute and simple and they that conduct it should compose all the parts of it with gravity not perplex it with curious scrutinies not draw away any word or Article to the sense of his own interest For if it once pass the bounds set by the first Masters of the Assemblies and lose that simplicity with which it was invested there is no term or limit which can be any more set down Exempla non consistunt sed quamvis in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem The
the infallibility or the authority of the Church but upon an implicite Faith you can no more establish a building than you can number that which is not Besides this an implicite Faith in the Articles of the Church of Rome is not sense it is not Faith at all that is not explicite Faith comes by hearing and not by not hearing and the people of the Roman Church believe one proposition explicitely that is that their Church cannot erre and then indeed they are ready to believe any thing they tell them but as yet they believe nothing but the infallibility of their Guides and to call that Faith which is but a readiness or disposition to have it is like filling a man's belly with the meat he shall eat to morow night an act of Understanding antedated But when it is consider'd in it's own intrinsick nature and meaning it effects this proposition that these things are indeed no objects of that Faith by which we are to be sav'd for it is strange that men having the use of reason should hope to be sav'd by the merit of a Faith that believes nothing that knows nothing that understands nothing but that our Faith is completed in the essential notices of the Evangelical Covenant in the propositions which every Christian man and woman is bound to know and that the other propositions are but arts of Empire and devices of Government or the Scholastick confidence of Opinions something to amuse consciences and such by which the mystick persons may become more knowing and rever'd than their poor Parishioners 3. The Church of Rome determines trifles and inconsiderable propositions and adopts them into the family of faith Of this nature are many things which the Popes determine in their chairs and send them into the world as oracles What a dangerous thing would it be esteem'd to any Roman Catholick if he should dare to question Whether the Consecration of the Bread and Wine be to be done by the prayer of the Priest or by the mystick words of Hoc est corpus meum said ove the Elements For that by the force of those words said with right intention the bread is transsubstantiated Lib. 1. de Sacr. Euchar. cap. 12. Sect. Est igitur and made the body of Christ Ecclesia Catholica magno consensu docet said Bellarmine so it is also in the Council of Florence in the Instruction of the Armenians Lib. 1. Sent. dist 8. so it is taught in the Catechism of the Council of Trent so it is agreed by the Master of the Sentences and his Scholars by Gratian and the Lawyers and so it is determin'd in the law it self Cap. Cum Martha extr de celebratione Missarum And yet this is no certain thing and not so agreeable to the spirituality of the Gospel to suppose such a change made by the saying so many words And therefore although the Church does well in using all the words of Institution at the Consecration for so they are carefully recited in the Liturgies of S. James S. Clement S. Basil S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose the Anaphora of the Syrians Inter Evangelistas quae omittuntur ab uno supplentur ab alio Innocentius de offic in the Universal Canon of the Ethiopians only they do not do this so carefully in the Roman Missal but leave out words very considerable words which S. Luke and S. Paul recite viz. which is broken for you Missae l. 3. c. 17. or which is given for you and to the words of Consecration of the Chalice they add words which Christ did not speak in the Institution and Benediction yet besides this generally the Greek Fathers and divers of the Latine do expressly teach that the Consecration of the elements is made by the prayers of the Church recited by the Bishop or Priest For the Scripture tells us that Christ took the bread he blessed it and brake it and gave it to them saying Take eat It is to be supposed that Christ consecrated it before he gave it to them and yet if he did all the Consecration was effected by his Benediction of it And if as the Romanists contend Christ gave the Sacrament of the Eucharist to the two Disciples at Emmaus it is certain there is no record of any other Consecration but by Christs blessing or praying over the elements It is indeed possible that something more might be done than was set down but nothing less and therefore this Consecration was not done without the Benediction and therefore Hoc est corpus meum alone cannot do it at least there is no warrant for it in Christs Example And when S. Peter in his Ministery did found and establish Churches Orationum ordinem quibus oblata Deo sacrificia consecrantur à S. Petro primò fuisse institutum said Isidore Remigius Hugo de S. Victore and Alphonsus à Castro S. Peter first instituted the order of Prayers by which the sacrifices offer'd to God were consecrated and in the Liturgy of S. James after the words of Institution are recited over the Elements there is a Prayer of Consecration O Lord make this Bread to be the body of thy Christ c. Which words although Bellarmine troubles himself to answer as Cardinal Bessarion did before him yet we shall find his answers to no purpose expounding the prayer to be onely a Confirmation or an Amen to what was done before for if that Consecration was made before that Prayer how comes S. James to call it Bread after Consecration And as weak are his other answers saying The Prayer means that God would make it so to us not in it self which although S. James hath nothing to warrant that Exposition yet it is true upon another account that is because the Bread becomes Christs body onely to us to them who communicate worthily but never to the wicked and it is not Christs body but in the using it and that worthily too And therefore his third Answer which he uses first is certainly the best and that is the answer which Bessarion makes That for ought they know the order of the words is chang'd and that the Prayer should be set before not after the words of Consecration Against which although it is sufficient to oppose that for ought they or we know the order is not chang'd for to this day and always so far as any record remains the Greeks kept the same order of the words and the Greek Fathers had their sentiment and doctrine agreeable to it And as in S. James his Liturgy so in the Missal said to be of S. Clement the same order is observed and after the words of the Institution or Declaration God is invocated to send his Holy Spirit to make the oblation to become the body and bloud of Christ. And in pursuance of this Justin Martyr calls it Apol. 2. lib. 8. cont Celsum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad quorum preces
use of the power of the Keys it being truly and properly the intromission of Catachumens into the house of God and an admitting them to all the Promises and Benefits of the Kingdom and which is the greatest the most absolute and most evident remission of all the sins precommitted and yet towards the dispensing this pardon no particular Confession of sins is previous by any necessity or Divine Law Repentance in persons of choice and discretion is and was always necessary but because persons were not tied to confess their sins particularly to a Priest before Baptism it is certain that Repentance can be perfect without this Confession And this argument is yet of greater force and persuasion against the Church of Rome for since Baptizing is for remission of sins and is the first act of the power of the Keys and the evident way of opening the doors of the house of God and yet the power of baptizing is in the Church of Rome in the absence of a Priest given to a lay-man and frequently to a Deacon it follows that the power of the Keys and a power of remitting sins is no Judiciary act unless a Lay-man be declar'd capable of the power of judging and of remitting sins 5. 5 If we consider that without true repentance no sin can be pardon'd and with it all sins may and that no one sin is pardon'd as to the final state of our souls but at the same time all are pardon'd it must needs follow that it is not the number of sins but the condition of the person the change of his life the sorrow of his heart the truth of his Conversion and his hatred of all sin that he is to consider If his repentance be a true change from evil to good from sin to God a thousand sins are pardon'd as soon as one and the infinite mercy of God does equally exceed one sin and one thousand Indeed in order to counsel or comfort it may be very useful to tell all that grieves the penitent all that for which he hath no rest and cannot get satisfaction but as to the exercising any other judgment upon the man either for the present or for the future to reckon up what is past seems not very useful or at all reasonable But as the Priest who baptizes a Convert judges of him as far as he can and ought that is whether he hath laid aside every hindrance and be dispos'd to receive remission of sins by the Spirit of God in Baptism so it is in Repentance the man's conversion and change is to be considered which cannot be by what is past but by what is present or future And now 3 3 Although the judicial power of the Priest cannot inferre the necessity of particular Confession yet if the judicial power be also of another nature than is supposed or rather be not properly judicium fori the judgment of a tribunal coercive poenal and exterminating by proper effect and real change of state and person then the superstructure and the foundation too will be digged down And this therefore shall be consider'd briefly And here the Scene is a little chang'd and the words of Christ to S. Peter are brought in as auxiliaries to prove the Priest's power to be judicial and that with the words of Christ to his Apostles John XX must demonstrate this point 1. Therefore I have the testimony and opinion of the Master of the Sentences affirming that the Priest's power is declarative not judicial the Sentence of an Embassadour Sent. lib. 4. dist 18. lit F. not of a Judge Sacerdotibus tribuit potestatem solvendi ligandi id est ostendendi homines ligatos vel solutos The Priest's power of loosing and binding is a power of shewing and declaring who are bound and who are loosed For when Christ had cur'd the Leper he sent him to the Priest by whose judgment he was to be declar'd clean and when Lazarus was first restor'd to life by Christ then he bade his Disciples loose him and let him go And if it be inquir'd To what purpose is the Priest's Solution if the man be pardon'd already It is answer'd that Although he be absolv'd before God yet he is not accounted loosed in the face of the Church but by the judgment of the Priest But we have the Sentence of a greater man in the Church S. Hierom in Matth. lib. 3. ad cap. 16. than Peter Lombard viz. of S. Hierom himself who discourses this affair dogmatically and fully and so as not to be capable of evasion speaking of those words of Christ to S. Peter I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven whatsoever thou shalt bind â—n Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose in Earth shall be loosed in Heaven This place saith S. Hierom some Bishops and Priests not understanding take upon them something of the superstitiousness of the Pharisees so as to condemn the Innocent or think to acquit the Guilty whereas God inquires not what is the Sentence of the Priest but the life of the Guilty In Leviticus the Lepers were commanded to shew themselves to the Priests who neither make them leprous nor clean but they discern who are clean and who are unclean As therefore there the Priest makes the leprous man clean or unclean So here does the Bishop or the Priest bind or loose i. e. according to their Office when he hears the variety of sins he knows who is to be bound and who is to be loosed S. Ambrose adds one advantage more as consequent to the Priest's absolving of penitents but expresly declares against the proper judicial power Men give their Ministery in the remission of sins Homines in remissione peccatorum ministerium suum exhibent non jus alicujus potestatis exercent Neque enim in suo sed in Nomine Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti peccata dimittuntur Istâ—rogant Divinitas donat c. S. Ambrose de Spir. S. lib. 3. cap. 19. but they exercise not the right of any power neither are sins remitted by them in their own but in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit Men pray but it is God who forgives It is mans obsequiousness but the bountiful gift is from God So likewise there is no doubt sins are forgiven in Baptism but the operation is of the Father Son and Holy Spirit Here S. Ambrose affirms the Priest's power of pardoning sins to be wholly Ministerial and Optative or by way of Prayer Just as it is in Baptism so it is in Repentance after Baptism Sins are pardon'd to the truly penitent but here is no proper Judicial power The Bishop prays and God pardons the Priest does his Ministery and God gives the gift Here are three witnesses against whom there is no exception and what they have said was good Catholick doctrine in their ages that is from the fourth age after Christ to the eleventh How it hath
fallen into Heresie since that time is now not worth inquiring but yet how reasonable that old doctrine is is very fit to consider 4. Of necessity it must be true because what ever kind of absolution or binding it is that the Bishops and Priests have power to use it does it's work intended without any real changing of state in the penitent The Priest alters nothing he diminishes no man's right he gives nothing to him but what he had before The Priest baptizes and he absolves and he communicates and he prays and he declares the will of God and by importunity he compells men to come and if he find them unworthy he keeps them out but it is such as he finds to be unworthy Such who are in a state of perdition he cannot he ought not to admit to the Ministeries of life True it is he prays to God for pardon and so he prays that God will give the sinner the grace of Repentance but he can no more give Pardon than he can give Repentance he that gives this gives that And it is so also in the case of Absolution he can absolve none but those that are truly penitent he can give thanks indeed to God on his behalf but as that Thanksgiving supposes pardon so that Pardon supposes repentance and if it be true Repentance the Priest will as certainly find him pardon'd as find him penitent And therefore we find in the old Penitentials and Usages of the Church that the Priest did not absolve the penitent in the Indicative or Judicial form To this purpose it is observed by Goar Pag. 676. in the Euchologion that now many do freely assert and tenaciously defend and clearly teach and prosperously write that the solemn form of reconciling Absolvo te à peccatis tuis is not perhaps above the age of 400 years and that the old form of Absolution in the Latin Church was composed in words of deprecation so far forth as we may conjecture out of the Ecclesiastical history ancient Rituals Tradition and other Testimonies without exception And in the Opuscula of Thomas Aquinas Opusc. 22. he tells that a Doctor said to him that the Optative form or deprecatory was the Usual and that then it was not thirty years since the Indicative form of Ego te Absolvo was us'd which computation comes neer the computation made by Goar And this is the more evidently so in that it appears that in the ancient Discipline of the Church a Deacon might reconcile the penitents if the Priest were absent Aleuin de Divini Offic. cap. Deâ—jejunio Si autem necessitas evenerit Presbyter non fuerit praesens Diaconus suscipiat poenitentem ac det Sanctam Communionem And if a Deacon can minister this affair then the Priest is not indispensably necessary nor his power judicial and pretorial But besides this the power of the Keys is under the Master in the hands of the Steward of the house who is the Minister of Government and the power of remitting and retaining being but the verification of the Promise of the Keys is to be understood by the same analogy and is exercised in many instances and to many great purposes though no man had ever dreamt of a judicial power of absolution of secret sins viz. in discipline and government in removing scandals in restoring persons overtaken in a fault to the peace of the Church in sustaining the weak in cutting off of corrupt members in rejecting hereticks in preaching peace by Jesus Christ and repentance through his name and ministering the word of reconciliation and interceding in the ministery of Christ's mediation that is being God's Embassadour he is God's Messenger in the great work of the Gospel which is Repentance and Forgiveness In short Binding and Loosing remitting and retaining are acts of Government relating to publick discipline And of any other pardoning or retaining no Man hath any power but what he ministers in the Word of God and prayer unto which the Ministery of the Sacraments is understood to belong For what does the Church when she binds a sinner or retains his sin but separate him from the communication of publick Prayers and Sacraments according to that saying of Tertullian Apolog. c. 39. Summum futuri judicii praejudicium est si quis ita deliquerit ut à communicatione orationis conventus omnis sancti commercii relegetur Homil. 50. c. 9. And the like was said by S. Austin Versetur ante oculos imago futuri judicii ut cum alii accedunt ad altare Dei quo ipse non accedit cogitet quà m sit contremiscenda illa poena qua percipientibus aliis vitam aeternam alii in mortem praecipitantur aeternam And when the Church upon the sinner's repentance does restore him to the benefit of publick Assemblies and Sacraments she does truly pardon his sins that is she takes off the evil that was upon him for his sins For so Christ prov'd his power on Earth to forgive sins by taking the poor man's palsie away and so does the Church pardon his sins by taking away that horrible punishment of separating him from all the publick communion of the Church and both these are in their several kinds the most material and proper pardons But then is the Church gives pardon propertionable to the evil she inflicts which God also will verifie if it be done here in truth and righteousness so there is a pardon which God onely gives He is the injured and offended Person and he alone can remit of his own right But yet to this pardon the Church does co-operate by her Ministery Now what this pardon is we understand best by the evils that are by him inflicted upon the sinner For to talk of a power of pardoning sins where there is no power to take away the punishment of sin is but a dream of a shadow sins are only then pardoned when the punishment is removed Now who but God alone can take away a sickness or rescue a soul from the power of his sins or snatch him out of the Devils possession The Spirit of God alone can do this It is the spirit that quickneth and raiseth from spiritual death and giveth us the life of God Man can pray for the spirit but God alone can give it our Blessed Saviour obtain'd for us the Spirit of God by this way by prayer I will pray unto the Father and he shall give you another Comforter even the spirit of truth and therefore much less do any of Christ's Ministers convey the spirit to any one but by prayer and holy Ministeries in the way of prayer But this is best illustrated by the case of Baptism Summ. part 4. q. 21. memb 1. It is a matter of equal power said Alexander of Ales to baptize with internal Baptism and to absolve from deadly sin But it was not fit that God should communicate the power of baptizing internally unto any lest we
praying baptizing communicating we have precept upon precept and line upon line we have in Scripture three Epistles written to two Bishops in which the Episcopal Office is abundantly describ'd and excellent Canons established and the parts of their duty enumerated and yet no care taken about the Office of Father Confessor Indeed we find a pious exhortation to all spiritual persons that If any man be overtaken in a fault they should restore such a one in the spirit of meekness restore him that is to the publick peace and communion of the Church from which by his delinquency he fell and restore him also by the word of his proper Ministery to the favour of God by exhortations to him by reproving of him by praying for him and besides this we have some little limits more which the Church of Rome if they please may make good use of in this Question 1 Tim. 5. 20. such as are That they who sin should be rebuk'd before all men that others also may fear which indeed is a good warranty for publick Discipline but very little for private Confession And Saint Paul charges Timothy that he should should lay hands suddenly on no man that he be not partaker of other mens sins which is a good caution against the Roman way of absolving them that confess as soon as they have confess'd before they have made their Satisfactions The same Apostle speaks also of some that creep into houses and lead captive silly women I should have thought he had intended it against such as then abus'd Auricular Confession it being so like what they do now but that S. Paul knew nothing of these lately-introduced practices and lastly he commands every one that is to receive the Holy Communion to examine himself and so let him eat he forgot it seems to enjoyn them to go to confession to be examin'd which certainly he could never have done more opportunely than here and if it had been necessary he could never have omitted it more undecently But it seems the first Christians were admitted upon other terms by the Apostles than they are at this day by the Roman Clergy And indeed it were infinitely strange that since in the Old Testament remission of sins was given to every one that confessed to God turn'd from his evil way * Isai. 1. 16. 17. 18. that * Ezek. 18. 22. in the New Testament * Ezek. 33. 15. 16. to which liberty is a special priviledge * Isai. 30. 15. secundum and the imposed yoke of Christ infinitely more easie than the burden of the Law * LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Repentance is the very formality of the Gospel-Covenant and yet that pardon of our sins shall not be given to us Christians on so easie terms as it was to the Jews but an intolerable new burden shall be made a new condition of obtaining pardon And this will appear yet the more strange when we consider that all the Sermons of the Prophets concerning Repentance were not derivations from Moses's Law but Homilies Evangelical and went before to prepare the way of the Lord and John Baptist was the last of them and that in this matter the Sermons of the Prophets were but the Gospel antedated and in this affair there was no change but to the better and to a clearer manifestation of the Divine mercy and the sweet yoke of Christ The Disciples of Christ preach'd the same doctrine of Repentance that the Baptist did and the Baptist the same that the Prophets did and there was no difference Christ was the same in all and he that commanded his Disciples to fast to God alone in private intended that all the parts of Repentance transacted between God and our consciences should be as sufficient as that one of Fasting and that other of Prayer and it is said so in all for if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness It it is God alone that can cleanse our hearts and he that cleanses us he alone does forgive us and this is upon our confession to him his justice and faithfulness is at stake for it and therefore it supposes a promise which we often find upon our confessions made to God but it was never promised upon confession made to the Priest But now in the next place if we consider Whether this thing be reasonable to impose such a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples which upon their Fathers was not put in the Old Testament nor ever commanded in the New we shall find that although many good things might be consequent to the religious and free and prudent use of Confession yet by changing into a Doctrine of God that which at most is but a Commandment of man it will not by all the contingent good make recompence for the intolerable evils it introduces And here first I consider that many times things seem profitable to us and may minister to good ends but God judges them useless and dangerous for he judges not as we judge The worshipping of Angels and the abstaining from meats which some false Apostles introduc'd look'd well and pretended to humility and mortificatioh of the body but the Apostle approv'd them not and of the same mind was the succeeding ages of the Church who condemned the dry Diet and the ascetick Fasts of Montanus though they were pretended only for discipline but when they came to be impos'd they grew intolerable Certainly men liv'd better lives when by the discipline of the Church sinners were brought to publick stations and penance than now they do by all the advantages real or pretended from Auricular Confession and yet the Church thought fit to lay it aside and nothing is left but the shadow of it 2. This whole topick can only by a prudential consideration and can no way inferre a Divine institution for though it was as convenient before Christ as since might have had the same effects upon the publick or private good then as now yet God was not pleased to appoint it in almost forty ages and we say He hath not done it yet However let it be consider'd that there being some things which S. Paul says are not to be so much as nam'd amongst Christians it must needs look undecently that all men all women should come and make the Priests Ears a Common-shoar to empty all their filthiness and that which a modest man would blush to hear he must be us'd to and it is the greatest part of his imployment to attend to True it is that a Physician must see and handle the impurest Ulcers but it is because the Cure does not depend upon the Patient but upon the Physician who by general advertisement cannot cure the Patient unless he had an Universal medicine which the Priest hath the medicine of Repentance which can indifferently cure all sins whether the Priest know them or no.
many ways it is a figure So that the whole force of E. W s. answer is this that if that which is like be the same then it is possible that a thing may be a sign of it's self and a man may be his own picture and that which is invisible may be a sign to give notice to come see a thing that is visible I have now expedited this topic of Authority in in this Question amongst the many reasons I urged against Transubstantiation E. W. p. 42. which I suppose to be unanswerable and if I could have answered them my self I would not have produc'd them these Gentlemen my adversaries are pleas'd to take notice but of one But by that it may be seen how they could have answered all the rest if they had pleased The argument is this every consecrated wafer saith the Church of Rome is Christs body and yet this wafer is not that wafer therefore either this or that is not Christs body or else Christ hath two natural bodies for there are two Wafers To this is answered the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies to Christ no more than head and feet infer two souls in a man or conclude there are two Gods one in heaven and the other in earth because heaven and earth are more distinct than two wafers To which I reply that the soul of man is in the head and feet as 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 its 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 sense 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 fills all places by his presence or is Christs body in the Sacrament as God is in the world that is repletive 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 In Ps. 33. 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 minde 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 Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 4. in fine P. Lombard dist 11. lib. 4. ad finem lit C. We call that the body of Christ which being taken from the fruits of the Earth and consecrated by mystic 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 Catholic 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 sense and the reason of all the world Christs real and spiritual presence in the Sacrament against the doctrine of Transubstantiation printed at London by R. Royston she must needs be greatly in the wrong But as to this question I was here only to justifie the Dissuasive I suppose these Gentlemen 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 SECTION 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 poyson to the bloud of Christ and to call the holy Apostles poysoners 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 bloud to all the people this was a great and a public 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 Sess. 13. 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 heretics and to be punished accordingly who say it is unlawful to observe the custome and law of giving it in one kinde 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