betray it yet the same severity you 'l find among us For though we will not tell a lie to help a sinner and say that is necessary which is only appointed to make men do themselves good yet we advise and commend it and do all the work of Souls to all those people that will be saved by all means to devout persons that make Religion the business of their lives and they that do not so in the Churches of the Roman Communion as they find but little advantage by periodical confessions so they feel but little awfulness and severity by the injunction You must confess to God all your secret actions you must advise with a holy man in all the affairs of your Soul you will be but an ill friend to your self if you conceal from him the state of your spiritual affairs We desire not to hear the circumstance of every sin but when matter of justice is concerned or the nature of the sin is changed that is when it ought to be made a Question and you will find that though the Church of England gives you much liberty from the bondage of innumerable Ceremonies and humane devices yet in the matter of holiness you will be tied to very great service but such a service as is perfect freedom that is the service of God and the love of the holy Jesus and a very strict religious life For we do not promise Heaven but upon the same terms it is promised us that is Repentance towards God and Faith in our Lord Jesus and as in Faith we make no more to be necessary than what is made so in holy Scripture so in the matter of Repentance we give you no easie devices and suffer no lessening definitions of it but oblige you to that strictness which is the condition of being saved and so expressed to be by the infallible Word of God but such as in the Church of Rome they do not so much stand upon Madam I am weary of my Journey and although I did purpose to have spoken many things more yet I desire that my not doing it may be laid upon the account of my weariness all that I shall add to the main business is this 4. Read the Scripture diligently and with an humble spirit and in it observe what is plain and believe and live accordingly Trouble not your self with what is difficult for in that your duty is not described 5. Pray frequently and effectually I had rather your prayers should be often than long It was well said of Petrarch Magno verborum fraeno uti decet cum superiore colloquentem When you speak to your Superior you ought to have a bridle upon your tongue much more when you speak to God I speak of what is decent in respect of our selves and our infinite distances from God But if love makes you speak speak on so shall your prayers be full of charity and devotion Nullus est amore superior ille te coget ad veniam qui me ad multiloquium Love makes God to be our friend and our approaches more united and acceptable and therefore you may say to God The same love which made me speak will also move thee to hear and pardon Love and devotion may enlarge your Litanies but nothing else can unless Authority does interpose 6. Be curious not to communicate but with the true Sons of the Church of England lest if you follow them that were amongst us but are gone out from us because they were not of us you be offended and tempted to impute their follies to the Church of England 7. Trouble your self with no controversies willingly but how you may best please God by a strict and severe conversation 8. If any Protestant live loosely remember that he dishonours an excellent Religion and that it may be no more laid upon the charge of our Church than the ill lives of most Christians may upon the whole Religion 9. Let no man or woman affright you with declamations and scaring words of Heretick and Damnation and Changeable for these words may be spoken against them that return to light as well as to those that go to darkness and that which men of all sides can say it can be of effect to no side upon its own strength or pretension THE END THREE LETTERS WRITTEN TO A GENTLEMAN That was tempted to the Communion of the ROMISH CHURCH The First Letter SIR YOU needed not to make the Preface of an excuse for writing so friendly and so necessary a Letter of Inquiry It was your kindness to my person which directed your addresses hither and your duty which ingag'd you to inquire some-where I do not doubt but you and very many other ingenious and conscientious persons do every day meet with the Tempters of the Roman Church who like the Pharisees compass Sea and Land to get a Proselyte at this I wonder not for as Demetrius said by this craft they get their living but I wonder that any ingenious person and such as I perceive you to be can be shaken by their weak assaults for their batteries are made up with impossible propositions and weak and violent prejudices respectively and when they talk of their own infallibility they prove it with false Mediums say we with fallible Mediums as themselves confess and when they argue us of an Uncertain Faith because we pretend to no infallibility they are themselves much more Uncertain because they build their pretence of infallibility upon that which not only can but will deceive them and since they can pretend no higher for their infallibility than prudential motives they break in pieces the staff upon which they lean and with which they strike us But Sir you are pleased to ask two Questions 1. Whether the Apostles of our Blessed Lord did not Orally deliver many things necessary to Salvation which were not committed to writing To which you add this assumentum in which because you desire to be answered I suppose you meant it for another Question viz. whether in those things which the Church of Rome retains and we take no notice of She be an Innovator or a conserver of Tradition and whether any thing which she so retains was or was not esteemed necessary The answer to the first part will conclude the second I therefore answer that whatsoever the Apostles did deliver as necessary to Salvation all that was written in the Scriptures and that to them who believe the Scriptures to be the word of God there needs no other Magazine of Divine truths but the Scripture And this the Fathers of the first and divers succeeding Ages do Unanimously affirm I will set down two or three so plain that either you must conclude them to be deceivers or that you will need no more but their testimony The words of S. Basil are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Every word and every thing ought to be made credible or believ'd by the testimony of the Divinely-inspired
his children That ye should walk worthy of God who hath called you unto his Kingdom and glory * For this cause also thank we God without ceasing because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us ye received it not as the word of men but as it is in truth the word of God which effectually worketh also in you that believe How much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God And having an High Priest over the house of God Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water * Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering for he is faithful that promised * And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works * Not forsaking the assembling of our selves together as the manner of some is but exhorting one another and so much the more as ye see the day approaching For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins * but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries * He that despised Moses's law died without mercy under two or three witnesses * Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God and hath counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God and if it first begin at us what shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself even as he is pure And whatsoever we ask we receive of him because we keep his Commandments and do those things which are pleasing in his sight And he that overcometh and keepeth my works unto the end to him will I give power over the Nations A Penitential Psalm collected out of the Psalms and Prophets HAVE mercy upon me O God according to thy loving kindness according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions For our transgressions are multiplied before thee and our sins testifie against us our transgressions are with us and as for our iniquities we know them In transgressing and lying against the Lord and departing away from our God speaking oppression and revolt conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falshood Our feet have run to evil our thoughts are thoughts of iniquity The way of peace we have not known we have made us crooked paths whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace Therefore do we wait for light but behold obscurity for brightness but we walk in darkness Look down from Heaven and behold from the habitation of thy Holiness and of thy Glory where is thy zeal and thy strength the sounding of thy bowels and of thy mercies towards me are they restrained We are indeed as an unclean thing and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags and we all do fade as a leaf and our iniquities like the wind have taken us away But now O Lord thou art our Father we are the clay and thou our potter and we all are the work of thy hand Be not wroth very sore O Lord neither remember iniquity for ever behold see we beseech thee we are thy people Thou O Lord art our Redeemer thy Name is from everlasting O Lord Father and Governour of my whole life leave me not to the sinful counsels of my own heart and let me not any more fall by them Set scourges over my thoughts and the discipline of wisdom over my heart lest my ignorances encrease and my sins abound to my destruction O Lord Father and God of my life give me not a proud look but turn away from thy servant always a haughty mind Turn away from me vain hopes and concupiscence and thou shalt hold him up that is always desirous to serve thee Let not the greediness of the belly nor the lust of the flesh take hold of me and give not thy servant over to an impudent mind There is a word that is clothed about with death God grant it be not found in the portion of thy servant For all such things shall be far from the godly and they shall not wallow in their sins Though my sins be as scarlet yet make them white as snow though they be red like crimson let them be as wooll For I am ashamed of the sins I have desired and am confounded for the pleasures that I have chosen Lord make me to know mine end and the measure of my days what it is that I may know how frail I am and that I may apply my heart unto wisdom Withhold not thou thy tender mercies from me O Lord let thy loving kindness and thy truth continually preserve me For innumerable evils have compassed me about mine iniquities have taken hold upon me so that I am not able to look up for they are more than the hairs of my head therefore my heart faileth me But thou O Lord though mine iniquities testifie against me save me for thy Name sake for our backslidings are many we have sinned grievously against thee But the Lord God will help me therefore shall I not be confounded therefore have I set my face like a flint and I know that I shall not be ashamed He is near that justifieth me who will contend with me The Lord God will help me who is he that shall condemn me I will trust in the Lord and stay upon my God O let me have this of thine hand that I may not lie down in sorrow S. Paul's Prayers for a holy life I. I BOW my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ of whom the whole family in Heaven and Earth is named that he would grant unto me according to the riches of his glory to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man that Christ may dwell in my heart by faith that being rooted and grounded in love I may be able to comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge and may be filled with all the fulness of God through the same our most blessed Saviour Jesus Amen The Doxologie Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think according to the power that worketh in us Vnto him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages world without end Amen II. O MOST gracious God grant to thy servant to be filled with the knowledge of thy Will in all
other Masters whose Theorems might abate the strength of their first perswasions and it is a great advantage in those cases to get possession and before their first principles can be dislodg'd they are made habitual and complexionall it is in their nature then to believe them and this is helped forward very much by the advantage of love and veneration which we have to the first parents of our perswasions And we see it in the Orders of Regulars in the Church of Rome That Opinion which was the Opinion of their Patron or Founder or of some eminent Personage of the Institute is enough to engage all the Order to be of that Opinion and it is strange that all the Dominicans should be of one Opinion in the matter of Predetermination and immaculate Conception and all the Franciscans of the quite contrary as if their understandings were formed in a different mold and furnished with various principles by their very Rule Now this prejudice works by many principles but how strongly they do possess the understanding is visible in that great instance of the affection and perfect perswasion the weaker sort of people have to that which they call the Religion of their Fore-fathers You may as well charm a Fever asleep with the noise of bells as make any pretence of Reason against that Religion which old men have intailed upon their heirs male so many generations till they can prescribe And the Apostles found this to be most true in the extremest difficulty they met with to contest against the Rites of Moses and the long Superstition of the Gentiles which they therefore thought fit to be retained because they had done so formerly Pergentes non quò eundum est sed quò itur and all the blessings of this life which God gave them they had in conjunction with their Religion and therefore they believed it was for their Religion and this perswasion was bound fast in them with ribs of iron the Apostles were forced to unloose the whole conjuncture of parts and principles in their understandings before they could make them malleable and receptive of any impresses But the observation and experience of all wise men can justifie this truth All that I shall say to the present purpose is this that consideration is to be had to the weakness of persons when they are prevailed upon by so innocent a prejudice and when there cannot be arguments strong enough to over-master an habitual perswasion bred with a man nourished up with him that always eat at his table and lay in his bosome he is not easily to be called Heretick for if he keeps the foundation of Faith other Articles are not so clearly demonstrated on either side but that a man may innocently be abused to the contrary And therefore in this case to handle him charitably is but to doe him justice And when an Opinion in minoribus articulis is entertained upon the title and stock of education it may be the better permitted to him since upon no better stock nor stronger arguments most men entertain their whole Religion even Christianity itself 5. Fifthly there are some persons of a differing perswasion who therefore are the rather to be tolerated because the indirect practices and impostures of their adversaries have confirmed them that those Opinions which they disavow are not from God as being upheld by means not of God's appointment For it is no unreasonable discourse to say that God will not be served with a lie for he does not need one and he hath means enough to support all those Truths which he hath commanded and hath supplied every honest cause with enough for its maintenance and to contest against its adversaries And but that they which use indirect arts will not be willing to lose any of their unjust advantages nor yet be charitable to those persons whom either to gain or to undoe they leave nothing unattempted the Church of Rome hath much reason not to be so decretory in her sentences against persons of a differing perswasion for if their cause were entirely the cause of God they have given wise people reason to suspect it because some of them have gone to the Devil to defend it And if it be remembred what tragedies were stirred up against Luther for saying the Devil had taught him an argument against the Mass it will be of as great advantage against them that they goe to the Devil for many arguments to support not onely the Mass but the other distinguishing Articles of their Church I instance in the notorious forging of Miracles and framing of false and ridiculous Legends For the former I need no other instances then what hapned in the great contestation about the immaculate Conception when there were Miracles brought on both sides to prove the contradictory parts and though it be more then probable that both sides play'd the jugglers yet the Dominicans had the ill luck to be discovered and the actors burn'd at Berne But this discovery hapned by providence for the Dominican Opinion hath more degrees of probability then the Franciscan is clearly more consonant both to Scripture and all Antiquity and this part of it is acknowledged by the greatest Patrons themselves as Salmeron Posa and Wadding yet because they played the knaves in a just Question and used false arts to maintain a true proposition God Almighty to shew that he will not be served by a lie was pleased rather to discover the Imposture in the right Opinion then in the false since nothing is more dishonourable to God then to offer a sin in sacrifice to him and nothing more incongruous in the nature of the thing then that truth and falshood should support each other or that true Doctrine should live at the charges of a lie And he that considers the arguments for each Opinion will easily conclude that if God would not have truth confirmed by a lie much less would he himself attest a lie with a true Miracle And by this ground it will easily follow that the Franciscan party although they had better luck then the Dominicans yet had not more honesty because their cause was worse and therefore their arguments no whit the better And although the argument drawn from Miracles is good to attest a holy Doctrine which by its own worth will support itself after way is a little made by Miracles yet of itself and by its own reputation it will not support any fabrick for in stead of proving a Doctrine to be true it makes that the Miracles themselves are suspected to be Illusions if they be pretended in behalf of a Doctrine which we think we have reason to account false And therefore the Jews did not believe Christ's Doctrine for his Miracles but disbelieved the truth of his Miracles because they did not like his Doctrine And if the holiness of his Doctrine and the Spirit of God by inspirations and infusions and by that which Saint Peter calls a surer word
ancient then falshood that God would not for so many Ages forsake his Church and leave her in an errour that whatsoever is new is not onely suspicious but false which are suppositions pious and plausible enough And if the Church of Rome had communicated Infants so long as she hath prayed to Saints or baptized Infants the communicating would have been believed with as much confidence as the other Articles are and the dissentients with as much impatience rejected But this consideration is to be enlarged upon all those particulars which as they are apt to abuse the persons of the men and amuse their understandings so they are instruments of their excuse and by making their errours to be invincible and their Opinions though false yet not criminall make it also to be an effect of reason and charity to permit the men a liberty of their Conscience and let them answer to God for themselves and their own Opinions Such as are the beauty and splendour of their Church their pompous Service the stateliness and solennity of the Hierarchy their name of Catholick which they suppose their own due and to concern no other Sect of Christians the antiquity of many of their Doctrines the continuall Succession of their Bishops their immediate derivation from the Apostles their Title to succeed S. Peter the supposall and pretence of his personal prerogatives the advantages which the conjunction of the Imperial Seat with their Episcopal hath brought to that See the flattering expressions of minor Bishops which by being old Records have obtained credibility the multitude and variety of people which are of their perswasion apparent consent with Antiquity in many Ceremonials which other Churches have rejected and a pretended and sometimes an apparent consent with some elder Ages in many matters Doctrinal the advantage which is derived to them by entertaining some personal Opinions of the Fathers which they with infinite clamours see to be cried up to be a Doctrine of the Church of that time the great consent of one part with another in that which most of them affirm to be de fide the great differences which are commenced amongst their Adversaries abusing the liberty of Prophesying unto a very great licentiousness their happiness of being instruments in converting divers Nations the advantages of Monarchicall Government the benefit of which as well as the inconveniences which though they feel they consider not they daily do enjoy the piety and the austerity of their Religious Orders of men and women the single life of their Priests and Bishops the riches of their Church the severity of their Fasts and their exteriour observances the great reputation of their first Bishops for Faith and sanctity the known holiness of some of those persons whose Institutes the Religious persons pretend to imitate their Miracles false or true substantial or imaginary the casualties and accidents that have happened to their Adversaries which being chances of humanity are attributed to several causes according as the fancies of men and their interests are pleased or satisfied the temporal felicity of their Professors the oblique arts and indirect proceedings of some of those who departed from them and amongsâ— many other things the names of Heretick and Schismatick which they with infinite pertinacy fasten upon all that disagree from them These things and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their Fore fathers which had actual possession and seisure of mens understandings before the opposite professions had a name and so much the rather because Religion hath more advantages upon the fancy and affections then it hath upon Philosophie and severe discourses and therefore is the more easily perswaded upon such grounds as these which are more apt to amuse then to satisfie the understanding 3. Secondly If we consider the Doctrines themselves we shall find them to be superstructures ill built and worse managed but yet they keep the foundation they build upon God in Jesus Christ they profess the Apostles Creed they retain Faith and repentance as the supporters of all our hopes of Heaven and believe many more Truths then can be proved to be of simple and original necessity to Salvation And therefore all the wisest personages of the adverse party allowed to them possibility of salvation whilst their errours are not faults of their will but weaknesses and deceptions of the understanding So that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vain and unhandsome superstructures But then on the other side if we take account of their Doctrines as they relate to good life or are consistent or inconsistent with civil Government we shall have other considerations 4. Thirdly For I consider that many of their Doctrines do accidentally teach or lead to ill life and it will appear to any man that considers the result of these Propositions Attrition which is a low and imperfect degree of sorrow for sin or as others say a sorrow for sin commenced upon any reason of a religious hope or fear or desire or any thing else is a sufficient disposition for a man in the Sacrament of Penance to receive absolution and be justified before God by taking away the guilt of all his sins and the obligation to eternall pains So that already the fear of Hell is quite removed upon conditions so easie that many men take more pains to get a groat then by this Doctrine we are obliged to for the curing and acquitting all the greatest sins of a whole life of the most vicious person in the world And but that they affright their people with a fear of Purgatory or with the severity of Penances in case they will not venture for Purgatory for by their Doctrine they may chuse or refuse either there would be nothing in their Doctrine or Discipline to impede and slacken their proclivity to sin But then they have as easie a cure for that too with a little more charge sometimes but most commonly with less trouble For there are so many Confraternities so many priviledged Churches Altars Monasteries Coemeteries Offices Festivals and so free a concession of Indulgences appendant to all these and a thousand fine devices to take away the fear of Purgatory to commute or expiate Penances that in no Sect of men do they with more ease and cheapness reconcile a wicked life with the hopes of Heaven then in the Roman Communion 5. And indeed if men would consider things upon their true grounds the Church of Rome should be more reproved upon Doctrines that infer ill life then upon such as are contrariant to Faith For false superstructures do not always destroy Faith but many of the Doctrines they teach if they were prosecuted to the utmost issue would destroy good life And therefore my quarrell with the Church of Rome is greater
the Roman Sea yet a viper sprung out of Queen Maries sires which at Frankford first leap'd upon the hand of the Church but since that time it hath gnawn the bowels of its own Mother and given it self life by the death of its Parent and Nurse 15. For as for the Adversaries from the Roman party they were so convinc'd by the piety and innocence of the Common-Prayer-Book that they could accuse it of no deformity but of imperfection of a want of some things which they judged convenient because the error had a wrinkle on it and the face of antiquity And therefore for ten or eleven years they came to our Churches joyn'd in our devotions and communicated without scruple till a temporal interest of the Church of Rome rent the Schism wider and made it gape like the jaws of the grave And let me say it adds no small degree to my confidence and opinion of the English Common-Prayer-Book that amongst the numerous Armies sent from the Roman Seminaries who were curious enough to enquire able enough to find out and wanted no anger to have made them charge home any error in our Liturgy if the matter had not been unblameable and the composition excellent there was never any impiety or Heresie charg'd upon the Liturgy of the Church for I reckon not the calumnies of Harding for they were only in general calling it Darkness c. from which aspersion it was worthily vindicated by M. Deering The truth of it is the Compilers took that course which was sufficient to have secur'd it against the malice of a Spanish Inquisitor or the scrutiny of a more inquisitive Presbytery for they put nothing of controversie into their prayers nothing that was then matter of question only because they could not prophesie they put in some things which since then have been called to question by persons whose interest was highly concerned to find fault with something But that also hath been the fate of the Penmen of holy Scripture some of which could prophesie and yet could not prevent this But I do not remember that any man was ever put to it to justifie the Common-Prayer against any positive publick and professed charge by a Roman Adversary Nay it is transmitted to us by the testimony of persons greater than all exceptions that Paulus Quartus in his private entercourses and Letters to Queen Elizabeth did offer to confirm the English Common-Prayer-Book if she would acknowledge his Primacy and authority and the Reformation derivative from him And this lenity was pursued by his Successor Pius Quartus with an omnia de nobis tibi polliceare he assured her she should have any thing from him not only things pertaining to her soul but what might conduce to the establishment and confirmation of her Royal Dignity amongst which that the Liturgy new established by her authority should not be rescinded by the Popes power was not the least considerable 16. And possibly this hath cast a cloud upon it in the eyes of such persons who never will keep charity or so much as civility but with those with whom they have made a league offensive and defensive against all the world This hath made it to be suspected of too much compliance with that Church and her Offices of devotion and that it is a very Cento composed out of the Mass-Book Pontifical Breviaries Manuals and Portuises of the Roman Church 17. I cannot say but many of our Prayers are also in the Roman Offices But so they are also in the Scripture so also is the Lords Prayer and if they were not yet the allegation is very inartificial and the charge peevish and unreasonable unless there were nothing good in the Roman Books or that it were unlawful to pray a good prayer which they had once stain'd with red letters The Objection hath not sence enough to procure an answer upon its own stock but by reflection from a direct truth which uses to be like light manifesting it self and discovering darkness 18. It was first perfected in King Edward the Sixths time but it was by and by impugned through the obstinate and dissembling malice of many They are the words of M. Fox in his Book of Martyrs Then it was reviewed and published with so much approbation that it was accounted the work of God but yet not long after there were some persons qui divisionis occasionem arripiebant saith Alesius vocabula pene syllabas expendendo they tried it by points and syllables and weighed every word and sought occasions to quarrel which being observed by Archbishop Cranmer he caused it to be translated into Latin and sent it to Bucer requiring his judgment of it who returned this answer That although there are in it some things quae rapi possunt ab inquietis ad materiam contentionis which by peevish men may be cavill'd at yet there was nothing in it but what was taken out of the Scriptures or agreeable to it if rightly understood that is if handled and read by wise and good men The zeal which Archbishop Grindal Bishop Ridly Dr. Taylor and other the holy Martyrs and Confessors in Queen Maries time expressed for this excellent Liturgy before and at the time of their death defending it by their disputations adorning it by their practice and sealing it with their bloods are arguments which ought to recommend it to all the sons of the Church of England for ever infinitely to be valued beyond all the little whispers and murmurs of argument pretended against it and when it came out of the flame and was purified in the Martyrs sires it became a vessel of honour and used in the house of God in all the days of that long peace which was the effect of Gods blessing and the reward as we humbly hope of an holy Religion and when it was laid aside in the days of Queen Mary it was to the great decay of the due honour of God and discomfort to the Professors of the truth of Christs Religion they are the words of Queen Elizabeth and her grave and wise Parliament 19. Archbishop Cranmer in his purgation A. D. 1553. made an offer if the Queen would give him leave to prove All that is contained in the Common-Prayer-Book to be conformable to that order which our blessed Saviour Christ did both observe and command to be observed And a little after he offers to joyn issue upon this point That the Order of the Church of England set out by authority of the innocent and godly Prince Edward the Sixth in his high Court of Parliament is the same that was used in the Church fifteen hundred years past 20. And I shall go near to make his words good For very much of our Liturgy is the very words of Scriptures The Psalms and Lessons and all the Hymns save one are nothing else but Scripture and owe nothing to the Roman Breviaries for their production or authority So that the matter of them is out
help as doubting coldness weariness disrelish of heavenly things indifferency and these are enough to interpret the place quoted in the Objection without tying him to make words for us to no great religious purposes when God hath done that for us in other manner than what we dream of ** Sect. 27. SO that in effect praying in the Holy Ghost or with the spirit is nothing but prayer for such things and in such manner which God by his Spirit hath taught us in holy Scripture Holy Prayers spiritual songs so the Apostle calls one part of prayer viz. Eucharistical or thanksgiving that is Prayers or Songs which are spiritual in materiâ And if they be called spiritual for the Efficient cause too the Holy Ghost being the Author of them it comes all to one for therefore he is the cause and giver of them because he hath in his word revealed what things we are to pray for and there also hath taught us the manner Sect. 28. AND this I plainly prove from the words of S. Paul before quoted The Spirit helpeth our infirmities for we know not what we should pray for as we ought In this we are infirm that we know not our own needs nor our own advantages when the Holy Ghost hath taught us what to ask and to ask that as we ought then he hath healed our infirmities and our ignorances in the matter and the manner then we know what to pray for as we ought then we have the grace of Prayer and the Spirit of supplication And therefore in the instance before mentioned concerning spiritual songs when the Apostle had twice enjoyn'd the use of them in order to Prayer and Preaching to instruction and to Eucharist and those to be done by the aid of Christ and Christ's spirit What in one place he calls being filled with the Spirit In the other he calls the dwelling of the word of Christ in us richly plainly intimating to us that when we are mighty in the scriptures full of the word of Christ then we are filled with the Spirit because the Spirit is the great Dictator of them to us and the Remembrancer and when by such helps of Scripture we sing Hymns to Gods honour and our mutual comfort then we sing and give thanks in the spirit And this is evident if you consult the places and compare them Sect. 29. AND that this is for this reason called a gift and grace or issue of the Spirit is so evident and notorious that the speaking of an ordinary revealed truth is called in Scripture a speaking by the Spirit 1 Cor. 12.8 No man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost For though the world could not acknowledge Jesus for the Lord without a revelation yet now that we are taught this truth by Scripture and by the preaching of the Apostles to which they were enabled by the Holy Ghost we need no revelation or Enthusiasm to confess this truth which we are taught in our Creeds and Catechisms and this light sprang first from the immission of a ray from God's Spirit we must for ever acknowledge him the fountain of our light Though we cool our thirst at the mouth of the river yet we owe for our draughts to the springs and fountains from whence the waters first came though derived to us by the succession of a long current If the Holy Ghost supplies us with materials and fundamentals for our building it is then enough to denominate the whole edifice to be of him although the labour and the workmanship be ours upon another stock And this is it which the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 2.13 Which things also we speak not in the words which mans wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth comparing spiritual things with spiritual The Holy Ghost teaches yet it is upon our co-operation our study and endeavour while we compare spiritual things with spiritual the Holy Ghost is said to teach us because these spirituals were of his suggestion and revelation Sect. 30. FOR it is a rule of the School and there is much reason in it Habitus infusi infunduntur per modum acquisitorum whatsoever is infused into us is in the same manner infused as other things are acquired that is step by step by humane means and co-operation and grace does not give us new faculties and create another nature but meliorates and improves our own And therefore what the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habits the Christians used to call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gifts because we derive assistances from above to heighten the habits and facilitate the actions in order to a more noble and supernatural end And what S. Paul said in the Resurrection is also true in this Question That is not first which is spiritual but that which natural and then that which is spiritual The graces and gifts of the Spirit are postnate and are additions to art and nature God directs our counsels opens our understandings regulates our will orders our affections supplies us with objects and arguments and opportunities and revelations in scriptis and then most when we most imploy our own endeavours God loving to bless all the means and instruments of his service whether they be natural or acquisite Sect. 31. SO that now I demand Whether since the expiration of the age of miracles Gods spirit does not most assist us when we most endeavour and most use the means He that says No discourages all men from reading the Scriptures from industry from meditation from conference from humane arts and sciences and from whatsoever else God and good Laws provoke us to by proposition of rewards But if Yea as most certainly God will best crown the best endeavours then the spirit of prayer is greatest in him who supposing the like capacities and opportunities studies hardest reads most practises most religiously deliberates most prudently and then by how much want of means is worse than the use of means by so much ex tempore prayers are worse than deliberate and studied Excellent therefore is the Counsel of Saint Peter 1 Epist. Chap. 4. ver 11. If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God not lightly then and inconsiderately If any man minister let him do it as of the ability which God giveth great reason then to put to all his abilities and faculties to it and whether of the two does most likely do that he that takes pains and considers and discusses and so approves and practises a form or he that never considers what he says till he says it needs not much deliberation to pass a sentence Only methinks it is most unreasonable that we should be bound to prepare our selves with due requisites to hear what they shall speak in publick and that they should not prepare what to speak as if to speak were of easier or of less consideration than to hear what is spoken or if
office above Presbyters for in Scripture they could never do it and this is it which we call Episcopacy SECT IX And Superiority of Jurisdiction THIRDLY The Apostles were Rulers of the whole Church and each Apostle respectively of his several Diocess when he would fix his Chair and had superintendency over the Presbyters and the people and this by Christ's donation the Charter is by the Fathers said to be this Sicut misit me Pater sicâ— ego mitto vos As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Manifesta enim est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à Patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes said Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop in the Council of Carthage related by S. Cyprian and S. Austin But however it is evident in Scripture that the Apostles had such superintendency over the inferior Clergy Presbyters I mean and Deacons and a superiority of jurisdiction and therefore it is certain that Christ gave it them for none of the Apostles took this honour but he that was called of God as was Aaron 1. Our blessed Saviour gave to the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis It was sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father sent so I send You my Apostles whom I have chosen This was not said to Presbyters for they had no commission at all given to them by Christ but at their first mission to preach repentance I say no commission at all they were not spoken to they were not present Now then consider Suppose that as Aerius did deny the Divine institution of Bishops over the Presbyters cum grege another as confident as he should deny the Divine institution of Presbyters what proof were there in all the holy Scripture to shew the Divine institution of them as a distinct Order from Apostles or Bishops Indeed Christ selected 72. and gave them commission to preach but that commission was temporary and expired before the crucifixion for ought appears in Scripture If it be said the Apostles did ordain Presbyters in every City it is true but not sufficient for so they ordained Deacons at Jerusalem and in all established Churches and yet this will not tant'amount to an immediate Divine institution for Deacons and how can it then for Presbyters If we say a constant Catholick traditive interpretation of Scripture does teach us that Christ did institute the Presbyterate together with Episcopacy and made the Apostles Presbyters as well as Bishops this is true But then 1. We recede from the plain words of Scripture and rely upon tradition which in this Question of Episcopacy will be of dangerous consequence to the enemies of it for the same tradition if that be admitted for good probation is for Episcopal preheminence over Presbyters as will appear in the sequel 2. Though no use be made of this advantage yet to the allegation it will be quickly answered that it can never be proved from Scripture that Christ made the Apostles Priests first and then Bishops or Apostles but only that Christ gave them several commissions and parts of the Office Apostolical all which being in one person cannot by force of Scripture prove two Orders Truth is if we change the scene of war and say that the Presbyterate as a distinct Order from the ordinary Office of Apostleship is not of Divine institution the proof of it would be harder than for the Divine institution of Episcopacy Especially if we consider that in all the enumerations of the parts of Clerical Offices there is no enumeration of Presbyters but of Apostles there is and the other Members of the induction are of gifts of Christianity or parts of the Apostolate and either must infer many more Orders than the Church ever yet admitted of or none distinct from the Apostolate insomuch as Apostles were Pastors and Teachers and Evangelists and Rulers and had the gift of Tongues of Healing and of Miracles This thing is of great consideration and this use I will make of it That either Christ made the 72. to be Presbyters and in them instituted the distinct Order of Presbyterate as the ancient Church alwayes did believe or else he gave no distinct commission for any such distinct Order If the second be admitted then the Presbyterate is not of immediate divine institution but of Apostolical only as is the Order of Deacons and the whole plenitude of power is in the Order Apostolical alone and the Apostles did constitute Presbyters with a greater portion of their own power as they did Deacons with a less But if the first be said then the commission to the 72. Presbyters being only of preaching that we find in Scripture all the rest of their power which now they have is by Apostolical ordinance and then although the Apostles did admit them in partem sollicitudinis yet they did not admit them in plenitudinem potestatis for then they must have made them Apostles and then there will be no distinction of order neither by Divine nor Apostolical institution neither I care not which part be chosen one is certain but if either of them be true then since to the Apostles only Christ gave a plenitude of power it follows that either the Presbyters have no power of jurisdiction as affixed to a distinct order and then the Apostles are to rule them by vertue of the order and ordinary commission Apostolical or if they have jurisdiction they do derive it à foâ—te Apostolorum and then the Apostles have superiority of jurisdiction over Presbyters because Presbyters only have it by delegation Apostolical And that I say truth besides that there is no possibility of shewing the contrary in Scripture by the producing any other commission given to Presbyters then what I have specified I will hereafter shew it to have been the faith and practice of Christendom not only that Presbyters were actually subordinate to Bishops which I contend to be the ordinary office of Apostleship but that Presbyteâ—s have no Jurisdiction essential to their order but derivative only from Apostolical preheminence 2. Let us now see the matter of fact They that can inflict censures upon Presbyters have certainly superiority of Jurisdiction over Presbyters for Aequalis aequalem coercere non potest saith the Law Now it is evident in the case of Diotrephes a Presbyter and a Bishop Would be that for his peremptory rejection of some faithful people from the Catholick Communion without cause and without authority Saint John the Apostle threatned him in his Epistle to Gaius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wherefore when I come I will remember him and all that would have been to very little purpose if he had not had coercive jurisdiction to have punisht his delinquency 3. Presbyters many of them did succeed the Apostles by a new Ordination as Matthias succeeded Judas who before his new ordination was
primitùs sunt constituti The Lord did at first ordain and the Apostles did so order it and so Bishops at first had their Original constitution These and all the former who affirm Bishops to be successors of the Apostles and by consequence to have the same institution drive all to the same issue and are sufficient to make faith that it was the doctrine Primitive and Catholick that Episcopacy is a Divine institution which Christ Planted in the first founding of Christendom which the Holy Ghost Watered in his first descent on Pentecost and to which we are confident that God will give an increase by a neve-failing succession unless where God removes the Candlestick or which is all one takes away the star the Angel of light from it that it may be invelop'd in darkness usque ad consummationem saeculi aperturam tenebrarum The conclusion of all I subjoyn in the words of Venerable Bede before quoted Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti Bishops are distinct from Presbyters and Superiour to them by the law of God The second Basis of Episcopacy is Apostolical tradition We have seen what Christ did now we shall see what was done by his Apostles And since they knew their Masters mind so well we can never better confide in any argument to prove Divine institution of a derivative authority than the practice Apostolical Apostoli enim Discipuli veritatis existentes extra omne mendacium sunt non enim communicat mendacium veritati sicut non communicant tenebrae luci sed praesentia alterius excludit alterum saith S. Irenaeus SECT XIII In pursuance of the Divine Institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches FIRST then the Apostles did presently after the Ascension fix an Apostle or a Bishop in the chair of Jerusalem For they knew that Jerusalem was shortly to be destroyed they themselves foretold of miseries and desolations to ensue Petrus Paulus praedicunt cladem Hierosolymitanam saith Lactantius l. 4. inst famines and wars and not a stone left upon another was the fate of that Rebellious City by Christs own prediction which themselves recorded in Scripture And to say they understood not what they writ is to make them Enthusiasts and neither good Doctors nor wise seers But it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the holy Spirit which was promised to lead them into all truth would instruct them in so concerning an issue of publick affairs as was so Great desolation and therefore they began betimes to establish that Church and to fix it upon its perpetual base Secondly The Church of Jerusalem was to be the president and platform for other Churches The word of God went forth into all the world beginning first at Jerusalem and therefore also it was more necessary a Bishop should be there plac'd betimes that other Churches might see their government from whence they receiv'd their doctrine that they might see from what stars their continual flux of light must stream Thirdly the Apostles were actually dispers'd by persecution and this to be sure they look'd for and therefore so implying the necessity of a Bishop to govern in their absence or decession any ways they ordained S. James the first Bishop of Jerusalem there he fixt his chair there he lived Bishop for 30 years and finished his course with glorious Martyrdom If this be proved we are in a fair way for practice Apostolical First Let us see all that is said of S. James in Scripture that may concern this affair Acts 15. We find S. James in the Synod at Jerusalem not disputing but giving final determination to that Great Question about Circumcision And when there had been much disputing Peter rose up and said c. He first drave the question to an issue and told them what he believed concerning it with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we trust it will go as well with us without circumcision as with our Forefathers who used it But S. James when he had summed up what had been said by S. Peter gave sentence and final determination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore I judge or give sentence So he The acts of Council which the Brethren or Presbyters did use were deliberative they disputed v. 7. S. Peter's act was declarative but S. James his was decisive which proves him clearly if by reasonableness of the thing and the successive practice of Christendom in imitation of this first Council Apostolical we may take our estimate that S. James was the President of this Synod which considering that he was none of the twelve as I proved formerly is unimaginable were it not for the advantage of the place it being held in Jerusalem where he was Hierosolymorum Episcopus as S. Clement calls him especially in the presence of S. Peter who was primus Apostolus and decked with many personal priviledges and prerogatives * Add to this that although the whole Council did consent to the sending of the Decretal Epistle and to send Judas and Silas yet because they were of the Presbytery and Colledge of Jerusalem S. James his Clergy they are said as by way of appropriation to come from S. James Gal. 2. v. 12. Upon which place S. Austin saith thus Cùm vidisset quosdam venisse à Jacobo i. e. à Judaeâ nam Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae Jacobus praefuit To this purpose that of Ignatius is very pertinent calling S. Stephen the Deacon of S. James and in his Epistle to Hero saying that he did Minister to S. James and the Presbyters of Jerusalem which if we expound according to the known discipline of the Church in Ignatius's time who was Suppar Apostolorum only not a contemporary Bishop here is plainly the eminency of an Episcopal chair and Jerusalem the seat of S. James and the Clergy his own of a Colledge of which he was the praepositus Ordinarius he was their Ordinary * The second evidence of Scripture is Acts 21. And when we were come to Jerusalem the Brethren received us gladly and the day following Paul went in with us unto James and all the Elders were present Why unto James Why not rather unto the Presbytery or Colledge of Elders if James did not eminere were not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Praepositus or Bishop of them all Now that these conjectures are not vain and impertinent see it testified by Antiquity to which in matter of fact and Church-story he that will not give faith upon current testimonies and uncontradicted by Antiquity is a mad-man and may as well disbelieve every thing that he hath not seen himself and can no way prove that himself was Christned and to be sure after 1600 years there is no possibility to disprove a matter of fact that was never questioned or doubted of before and therefore can never obtain the faith of any man to his contradictory it being impossible to prove it Eusebius reports out of S. Clement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
sufficient in this excuse For if eating Christ by faith be a thing of all times then it is also of the future and no difference of time is so apt to express an Eternal truth as is the future which is alwayes in flux and potential signification But the secret of the thing was this the Arguments against the sacramental sence of these words drawn from the following verses between this and the 51. verse could not so well be answered and therefore Bellarmine found out the trick of confessing all till you come thither as appears in his Answer to the ninth Argument that of some Catholicks However as to the Article I am to say these things 1. That very many of the most learned Romanists affirm that in this Chapter Christ does not speak of sacramental or oral manducation or of the Sacrament at all Johannes de Ragusio Biel Cusanus Ruard Tapper Cajetan Hessels Jansenius Waldensis Armachanus save only that Bellarmine going to excuse it sayes in effect that they did not do it very honestly for he affirms that they did it that they might confute the Hussites and the Lutherans about the Communion under both kinds and if it be so and not be so as it may serve a turn It is so for Transubstantiation and it is not so for the half Communion we have but little reason to rely upon their judgment or candor in any exposition of Scripture But it is no new thing for some sort of men to do so The Heretick Severus in Anastasius Sinaita maintained it lawful and even necessary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to occasions and emergent heresies to alter and change the Doctrines of Christ and the Cardinal of Cusa affirmed it lawful diversly to expound the Scriptures according to the times So that we know what precedents and authorities they can urge for so doing and I doubt not but it is practised too often since it was offered to be justified by Dureus against Whitaker 2. These great Clerks had reason to expound it not to be meant of sacramental manducation to avoid the unanswerable Argument against their half Communion for so Christ said Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you It is therefore as necessary to drink the Chalice as to eat the Bread and we perish if we omit either And their new whimsie of Concomitancy will not serve the turn because there it is sanguis effusus that is sacramentally powred forth blood that is powred forth not that is in the body 2. If it were in the body yet a man by no concomitancy can be said to drink what he only eats 3. If in the Sacramental body Christ gave the blood by concomitancy then he gave the blood twice which to what purpose it might be done is not yet revealed 4. If the blood be by concomitancy in the body then so is the body with the blood and then it will be sufficient to drink the Chalice without the Host as to eat the Host without the Chalice and then we must drink his Flesh as well as eat his Blood which if we could suppose to be possible yet the precept of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood were not observed by drinking that which is to be eaten and eating that which is to be drunk But certainly they are fine Propositions which cannot be true unless we can eat our drink and drink our meat unless bread be wine and wine be bread or to speak in their stile unless the body be the blood and the blood the body that is unless each of the two Symboles be the other as much as it self as much that which it is not as that which it is And this thing their own Pope Innocentius the third and from him Vasquez noted and Salmeron who affirmed that Christ commanded the manner as well as the thing and that without eating and drinking the precept of Christ is not obeyed 3. But whatever can come of this yet upon the account of these words so expounded by some of the Fathers concerning oral manducation and potation they believed themselves bound by the same necessity to give the Eucharist to Infants as to give them Baptism and did for above seven Ages together practise it And let these men that will have these words spoken of the Eucharist answer the Argument Bellarmine is troubled with it and instead of answering increases the difficulty and concludes firmly against himself saying If the words be understood of eating Christ's body spiritually or by faith it will be more impossible to Infants for it is easier to give them intinctum panem bread dipt in the Chalice than to make them believe To this I reply that therefore it is spoken to Infants in neither sence neither is any law at all given to them and no laws can be understood as obligatory to them in that capacity But then although I have answered the Argument because I believe it not to be meant in the Sacramental sence to any nor in the Spiritual sence to them yet Bellarmine hath not answered the pressure that lies upon his cause For since it is certain and he confesses it that it is easier that is it is possible to give Infants the Sacrament it follows that if here the Sacrament be meant Infants are obliged that is the Church is obliged to minister it as well as Baptism there being in vertue of these words the same necessity and in the nature of the thing the same possibility of their receiving it But then on the other side no inconvenience can press our interpretation of spiritual eating Christ by faith because it being naturally impossible that Infants should believe they cannot be concerned in an impossible Commandment So that we can answer Saint Austin's and Innocentius his Arguments for communicating of Infants but they cannot 4. If these words be understood of Sacramental manducation then no man can be saved but he that receives the holy Sacrament For unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye have no life in you if it be answered that the holy Sacrament must be eaten in act or in desire I reply that is not true because if a Catechumen desires Baptism only in the Article of his death it is sufficient to salvation and they dare not deny it 2. Fools young persons they that are surprised with sudden death cannot be thought to perish for want of the actual susception or desire 3. There is nothing in the words that can warrant or excuse the actual omission of the Sacrament and it is a strange deception that these men suffer by misunderstanding this distinction of receiving the Sacrament either in act or desire For they are not opposite but subordinate members differ only as act and disposition and this disposition is not at all required but as it
corpus meum viz. spiritualiter than to say hoc est that is sub his speciebus est corpus meum And this was the sence of Ocham the Father of the Nominalists it may be held that under the species of bread there remains also the substance because this is neither against reason nor any authority of the Bible and of all the manners this is most reasonable and more easie to maintain and from thence follow fewer inconveniences than from any other Yet because of the determination of the Church viz. of Rome all the Doctors commonly hold the contrary By the way observe that their Church hath determined against that against which neither the Scripture nor reason hath determined 2. The case is clearer in the other kind as in transition I noted above 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic calix I demand to what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hic This does refer What it demonstrates and points at The text sets the substantive down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this cup that is the wine in this cup of this it is that he affirmed it to be the blood of the New Testament or the New Testament in his blood that is this is the sanction of the everlasting Testament I make it in my blood this is the Symbol what I do now in sign I will do to morrow in substance and you shall for ever after remember and represent it thus in Sacrament I cannot devise what to say plainer than that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 points at the chalice Hoc potate merum So Juvencus a Priest of Spain in the reign of Constantine Drink this wine But by the way this troubled some body and therefore an order was taken to corrupt the words by changing them into Hunc potate meum but that the cheat was too apparent And if it be so of one kind it is so in both that is beyond all question Against this Bellarmine brings argumentum robustissimum a most robustious argument By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or cup cannot be meant the wine in the cup because it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which was shed for you referring to the cup for the word can agree with nothing but the cup therefore by the cup is meant not wine but blood for that was poured out To this I oppose these things 1. Though it does not agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet it must refer to it and is an ordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of case called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is not unusual in the best masters of Language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Demosthenes so also Goclenius in his Grammatical problemes observes another out of Cicero Benè autem dicere quod est peritè loqui non habet definitam aliquam regionem cujus terminis septa teneatur Many more he cites out of Plato Homer and Virgil and me thinks these men should least of all object this since in their Latin Bible Sixtus Senensis confesses and all the world knows there are innumerable barbarisms and improprieties hyperbata and Antipâ—oses But in the present case it is easily supplyed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is frequently understood and implyed in the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in my bloud which is shed for you 2. If it were referred to cup then the figure were more strong and violent and the expression less litteral and therefore it makes much against them who are undone if you admit figurative expressions in the institution of this Sacrament 3. To what can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refer but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cup and let what sence soever be affixed to it afterwards if it do not suppose a figure then there is no such thing as figures or words or truth or things 4. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears by S. Matthew and S. Mark where the word is directly applyed to bloud S. Paul uses not the word and Bellarmine himself gives the rule verba Domini rectiùs exposita à Marco c. When one Evangelist is plain by him we are to expound another that is not plain and S. Basil in his reading of the words either following some ancienter Greek copy or else mending it out of the other Evangelists changes the case into perfect Grammar and good Divinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6. Thirdly symbols of the blessed Sacrament are called bread and the cup after Consecration that is in the whole use of them This is twice affirmed by S. Paul The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communication so it should be read of the bloud of Christ the bread which we break is it not the communication of the body of Christ as if he had said This bread is Christs body though there be also this mystery in it This bread is the communication of Christs body that is the exhibition and donation of it not Christs body formally but virtually and effectively it makes us communicate with Christs body in all the effects and benefits A like expression we have in Valerius Maximus where Scipio in the feast of Jupiter is said Graccho Communicasse concordiam that is consignasse he communicated concord he consigned it with the sacrifice giving him peace and friendship the benefit of that communication and so is the cup of benediction that is when the cup is blessed it communicates Christs blood and so does the blessed bread for to eat the bread in the New Testament is the sacrifice of Christians they are the words of S. Austin Omnes de uno pane participamus so S. Paul we all partake of this one bread Hence the argument is plain That which is broken is the communication of Christs body But that which is broken is bread therefore bread is the communication of Christs body The bread which we break those are the words 7. Fourthly The other place of S. Paul is plainer yet Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. And so often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye declare the Lords death till he come and the same also vers 27. three times in this chapter he calls the Eucharist Bread It is bread sacramental bread when the communicant eats it But he that in the Church of Rome should call to the Priest to give him a piece of bread would quickly find that instead of bread he should have a stone or something as bad But S. Paul had a little of the Macedonian simplicity calling things by their own plain names 8. Fifthly against this some little things are pretended in answer by the Roman Doctors 1. That the holy Eucharist or the sacred body is called bread because it is made of bread as Eve is
is as it was crucified as it was our sacrifice And this is so wholly agreeable to the nature of the thing and the order of the words and the body of the circumstances that it is next to that which is evident in it self and needs no further light but the considering the words and the design of the Institution especially since it is consonant to the style of Scripture in the Sacrament of the Passeover and very many other instances it wholly explicates the nature of the mystery it reconciles our duty with the secret it is free of all inconvenience it prejudices no right nor hinders any real effect it hath or can have and it makes the mystery intelligible and prudent fit to be discoursed of and inserted into the rituals of a wise Religion 8. Seventhly He that receives unworthily receives no benefit to his body or to his soul by the holy Sacrament that is agreed on all sides therefore he that receives benefit to his body receives it by his worthy communicating therefore the benefit reaching to the body by the holy Eucharist comes to it by the soul therefore by the action of the soul not the action of the body therefore by faith not by the mouth whereas on the contrary if Christs body natural were eaten in the Sacrament the benefit would come to the body by his own action and to the soul by the body All that eat are not made Christs body and all that eat not are not disintitled to the resurrection the Spirit does the work without the Sacrament and in the Sacrament when 't is done The flesh profiteth nothing And this argument ought to prevail upon this account Because as is the nutriment so is the manducation If the nourishment be wholly spiritual then so is the eating But by the Roman doctrine the body of Christ does not naturally nourish therefore neither is it eaten naturally but it does nourish spiritually and therefore it is eaten only spiritually And this doctrine is also affirmed by Cajetan though how they will endure it I cannot understand Manducatur verum corpus Christi in Sacramento sed non corporalitèr sed spiritualitèr Spiritualis manducatio quae per animam fit ad Christi carnem in Sacramento existentem pertingit The true body of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament but not corporally but spiritually The spiritual manducation which is made by the soul reaches to the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament which is very good Protestant doctrine And if it be absurd to say Christs body doth nourish corporally why it should not be as absurd to say we eat it corporally is a secret which I have not yet been taught As is our eating so is the nourishing because that is in order to this therefore if you will suppose that natural eating of Christs body does nourish spiritually yet it must also nourish corporally let it do more if it may but it must do so much just as the waters in baptism although the waters are symbolical and instrumental to the purifying of the soul yet because the waters are material and corporeal they cleanse the body first and primarily so it must be in this Sacrament also if Christs body were eaten naturally it must nourish naturally and then pass further but that which is natural is first and then that which is spiritual 9. Eighthly For the likeness to the argument I insert this consideration by the doctrine of the ancient Church wicked men do not eat the body nor drink the blood of Christ. So Origen Si fieri potest ut qui malus adhuc perseveret edat verbum factum carnem cùm sit verbum panis vivus nequaquam scriptum fuisset Quisquis ederit panem hunc vivet in aeternum If it were possible for him that perseveres in wickedness to eat the word made flesh when it is the word and the living bread it had never been written Whosoever shall eat this bread shall live for ever So S. Hilary Panis qui descendit de coelo non nisi ab eo accipitur qui Dominum habet Christi membrum est The bread that came down from Heaven is not taken of any but of him who hath the Lord and is a member of Christ. Lambunt Petram saith S. Cyprian They lick the Rock that is eat not of the food and drink not of the blood that issued from thence when the Rock was smitten They receive corticem sacramenti furfur carnis saith S. Bernard the skin of the Sacrament and the bran of the flesh But Ven. Bede is plain without an allegory Omnis infidelis non vescitur carne Christi An unbelieving man is not fed with the flesh of Christ the reason of which could not be any thing but because Christ is only eaten by faith But I reserved S. Austin for the last So then these are no true receivers of Christs body in that they are none of his true members For to omit all other allegations they cannot be both the members of Christ and the members of an harlot and Christ himself saying He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him sheweth what it is to receive Christ not only sacramentally but truly for this is to dwell in Christ and Christ in him For thus he spoke as if he had said He that dwelleth not in me nor I in him cannot say he eateth my flesh or drinketh my blood In which words if the Roman Doctors will be judged by S. Austin for the sence of the Church in this Question and will allow him in this point to be a good Catholick 1. He dogmatically declares that the wicked man does not eat Christs body truly 2. He does eat it sacramentally 3. That to eat with effect is to eat Christs body truly to which if they please to add this That to eat it spiritually is to eat it with effect it follows by S. Austins doctrine that spiritually is really and that there is no true and real body of Christ eaten in the Sacrament but by the faithful receiver or if you please receive the conclusion in the words of S. Austin Tunc erit unicuique corpus sanguis Christi si quod in sacramento sumitur in ipsâ veritate spiritualiter manducetur spiritualiter bibatur then to each receiver it becomes the body and blood of Christ if that which is taken in the Sacrament be in the very truth it self spiritually eaten and spiritually drunk which words of S. Austin Bellarmine upon another occasion being to answer in stead of answering grants it and tells that this manner of speaking is very usual in S. Austin the truest answer in all his books but whether it be for him or against him he ought to have considered Neither can this be put off with saying that the wicked do not truly eat Christ that is not to any benefit or purpose but that this
be in more places than one if in two it may be in 2000 and then it may be every where for it is not limited and therefore is illimited and potentially infinite Against this so seemingly impossible at the very first sight and relying upon a similitude and analogy that is not far from blasphemy viz. that as God is in Heaven and yet on Earth eodem modo after the same manner is Christs body which words it cannot be easie to excuse against this I say although for the reasons alledged it be unnecessary to be disproved yet I have these things to oppose 1. The words of Scripture that affirm Christ to be in Heaven affirm also that he is gone from hence Now if Christs body not only could but must be every day in innumerable places on earth it would have been said that Christ is in Heaven but not that he is not here or that he is gone from hence 2. Surrexit non est hîc was the Angels discourse to the inquiring woman at the Sepulchre he is risen he is not here but if they had been taught the new doctrine of the Roman Schools they would have denied the consequent he is risen and gone from hence but he may be here too And this indeed might have put the Angels to a distinction but the womens ignorance rendred them secure However S. Austin is dogmatical in this Article saying Christum ubique totum esse tanquam Deum in eodem tanquam inhabitante Deum in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum Christ as God is every where but in respect of his body he is determin'd to a particular residence in Heaven viz. at the right hand of God that is in the best seat and in the greatest eminency And in the thirtieth Treatise of S. John It behoveth that the body of our Lord since it is raised again should be in one place alone but the truth is spread over all But concerning these words of S. Austin they have taken a course in all their Editions to corrupt the place And in stead of oportet have clapp'd in potest instead of must be have foisted in may be against the faith of the ancient Canonists and Scholasticks particularly Lombard Gratian Ivo Carnotensis Algerus Thomas Bonaventure Richardus Durand Biel Scotus Cassander and divers others To this purpose is that of S. Cyril Alex. He could not converse with his Disciples in the flesh being ascended to his Father So Cassian Jesus Christ speaking on Earth cannot be in Heaven but by the infinity of his Godhead and Fulgentius argues it strongly If the body of Christ be a true body it must be contained in a particular place but this place is just so corrupted in their Editions as is that of S. Austin potest being substituted instead of oportet but this doctrine viz. that to be in several places is impossible to a body and proper to God was affirmed by the Universality of Paris in a Synod under William their Bishop 1340 and Johannes Picus Mirandula maintained in Rome it self that it could not be by the power of God that one body should at once be in divers places 3. Thirdly The Scripture speaks of his going thither from hence by elevation and ascension and of his coming from thence at his appearing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the words have an Antithesis the Heavens till then shall retain him but then he shall come from thence which were needless if he might be here and stay there too 4. When Christ said Me ye have not always and at another time Loe I am with you always to the end of the World It is necessary that we distinguish the parts of a seeming contradiction Christ is with us by his Spirit but Christ is not with us in body but if his body be here too then there is no way of Substantial Real Presence in which those words can be true me ye have not always The Rhemists in their note upon this place say that when Christ said Me ye have not always he means ye have not me in the manner of a poor man needing relief that is Not me so as you have the poor But this is a trifle because our Blessed Saviour did not receive that ministery of Mary Magdalen as a poor man for it was a present for a Prince not a relief to necessity but a Regalo fit for so great a person and therefore if he were here at all after his departure he was capable of as noble an usage and an address fit to represent a Majesty or at least to express a love It was also done for his burying so Christ accepted it and that signified and plainly related to a change of his state and abode But besides this if this could be the interpretation of those words then they did not at all signifie Christs leaving this world but only his changing his circumstance of fortune his outward dress and appendages of person which were a strange commentary upon Me ye have not always that is I shall be with you still but in a better condition but S. Austin hath given sentence concerning the sence of these words of Christ Loquebatur de praesentiâ corporis c. He spake of the presence of his body ye shall have me according to my providence according to Majesty and invisible grace but according to the flesh which the word assumed according to that which was born of the Virgin Mary ye shall not have me therefore because he conversed with his disciples forty days he is ascended up into Heaven and is not here If he be here in person what need he to have sent his Vicar his holy Spirit in substitution especially since by this doctrine he is more now with his Church than he was in the days of his conversion in Palestine for then he was but in one assembly at once now he is in thousands every day If it be said because although he be here yet we see him not This is not sufficient for what matter is it whether we see him or no if we know him to be here if we feel him if we eat him if we worship him in presence natural and proper There wants nothing but some accidents of colour and shape A friend in the dark behind a curtain or to a blind man is as certainly present as if he were in the light in open conversation or beheld with the eyes And then also the office of the holy Spirit would only be to supply the sight of his person which might possibly be true if he had no greater offices and we no greater needs and if he himself also were visible and glorious to our eyes for if the effect of his substitution is spiritual secret and invisible our eyes are still without comfort and if the Spirits secret effect does supply it and makes it not necessary that we should see him then so
but yet it was not a man and therefore if he thought it was he was abused This is their answer and if this will not serve the turn nothing will This therefore must be examined 3. Now this instead of taking away the insuperable difficulty does much increase it and confesses the things which it ought to have avoided For 1. The accidents proper to a substance are for the manifestation and notice of the substance not of themselves for as the man feels but the means by which he feels is the sensitive faculty so that which is felt is the substance and the means by which it is felt is the accidents as the shape the colour the bigness the motion of a man are manifestative and declarative of a humane substance and if they represent a wrong substance then the sense is deceived by a false sign of a true substance or a true sign of a false substance as if an Alchymist should shew me brass colour'd like gold and made ponderous and so adulterated that it would endure the touchstone for a long while the deception is because there is a pretence of improper accidents true accidents indeed but not belonging to that substance But 2. It is true that is pretended that it is not so much the outward sense that is abused as the inward that is not so much the eye as the Man not the sight but the judgment and this is it we complain of For indeed in proper speaking the eye or the hand is not capable of being deceived but the man by the eye or by the ear or by his hand The eye sees a colour or a figure and the inward sense apprehends it to be the figure of such a substance and the understanding judges it to be the thing which is properly represented by the accident it is so or it is not so if it be there is no deception if it be not so then there is a cousenage there is no lye till it comes to a proposition either explicit or implicit a lye is not in the senses but when a man by the ministery of the senses is led into the apprehension of a wrong object or the belief of a false proposition then he is made to believe a lye and this is our case when accidents proper to one substance are made the cover of another to which they are not naturally communicable And in the case of the holy Sacrament the matter if it were as is pretended were intolerable For in the cases wherein a man is commonly deceived it is his own fault by passing judgment too soon as if he should judge Glass to be Crystal because it looks like it This is not any deception in the senses nor any injury to the man because he ought to consider more things than the colour to make his judgment whether it be Glass or Crystal or Diamond or Ice the hardness the weight and other things are to be ingredients in the sentence And if any two things had all the same accidents then although the senses were not deceived yet the man would certainly and inculpably mistake If therefore in the Eucharist as is pretended all the accidents of bread remain then all men must necessarily be deceived If only one or two did remain one sense would help the other and all together would rightly inform the understanding But when all the accidents remain they cannot but represent that substance to which those accidents are proper and then the holy Sacrament would be a constant irresistable deception of all the world in that in which all mens notices are most evident and most relied upon I mean their senses And then the question will not be whether our senses can be deceived or no But whether or no it can stand with the justice and goodness of God to be angry with us for believing our senses since himself hath so ordered it that we cannot avoid being deceived there being in this case as much reason to believe a lye as to believe a truth if things were so as they pretend The result of which is this That as no one sense can be deceived about his proper object but that a man may about the substance lying under those accidents which are the object proper to that sense because he gives sentence according to that representment otherwise than he ought and he ought to have considered other accidents proper to other senses in making the judgment as the birds that took the picture of grapes for very grapes and he that took the picture of a curtain for a very curtain and desired the Painter to draw it aside they made judgment of the grapes and the curtain only by colour and figure but ought to have considered the weight the taste the touch and the smell so on the other side if all the senses concur then not only is it true that the senses cannot be deceived about that object which is their own but neither ought the man to be deceived about that substance which lies under those accidents because their ministery is all that natural instrument of conveying notice to a mans understanding which God hath appointed 4. Just upon this account it is that S. Johns argument had been just nothing in behalf of the whole religion for that God was incarnate that Jesus Christ did such miracles that he was crucified that he rose again and ascended into Heaven that he preached these Sermons that he gave such commandments he was made to believe by sounds by shapes by figures by motions by likenesses and appearances of all the proper accidents and his senses could not be deceived about the accidents which were the proper objects of the senses but if they might be deceived about the substance under these accidents of what truth or substance could he be ascertain'd by their ministery for he indeed saw the shape of a humane body but it might so be that not the body of a man but an Angelical substance might lie under it and so the Article of the assumption of humane nature is made uncertain And upon the same account so are all the other Articles of our Faith which relied upon the verity of his body and nature all which if they are not sufficiently signified by their proper accidents could not be ever the more believed for being seen with the eyes and heard with the ears and handled with our hands but if they were sufficiently declared by their proper accidents then the understanding can no more be deceived in the substances lying under the accidents than the senses can in the accidents themselves 4. To the same purpose it was that the Apostles were answered concerning the Article of the truth of Christs resurrection For when the Apostles were affrighted at his sudden appearing and thought it had been a Spirit Christ called them to feel his hands and to shew that it was he For a spirit hath no flesh and bones as ye see me have plainly meaning that
reckoned and in others respersed over this Treatise But to return to the present objection it is observable that S. Cyril does not say it is not bread though the sense suppose it to be so for that would have supposed the taste to have been deceived which he affirms not and if he had we could not have believed him but he says though the sense perceive it to be bread so that it is still bread else the taste would not perceive it to be so but it is more and the sense does not perceive it for it is the body of our Lord here then is his own answer plainly opposed to the objection he says it is not bread that is it is not meer bread and so say we he says that it is the body of our Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the antitype of the Lords body and so say we He says the sense perceives it to be bread but it is more than the sense perceives so he implies and so we affirm and yet we may trust our sense for all that it tells us and our understanding too for all it learns besides The like to this are the words of S. Chrysostome where he says We cannot be deceived by his words but our sense is often deceived look not at what is before us but observe Christs words Nothing sensible is given to us but things insensible by things sensible c. This and many higher things than this are in S. Chrysostome not only relating to this but to the other Sacrament also Think not thou receivest the body from a man but fire from the tongue of a Seraphim that for the Eucharist and for Baptism this The Priest baptizes thee not but God holds thy head In the same sence that these admit in the same sence we may understand his other words they are Tragical and high but may have a sober sence but literally they sound a contradiction that nothing sensible should be given us in the Sacrament and yet that nothing insensible should be given but what is conveyed by things sensible but it is not worth the while to stay here Only this the words of S. Chrysostome are good counsel and such as we follow for in this case we do not finally rely upon sense or resolve all into it but we trust it only for so much as it ought to be trusted for but we do not finally rest upon it but upon faith and look not on the things proposed but attend to the words of Christ and though we see it to be bread we also believe it to be his body in that sence which he intended SECT XI The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason 1. WHEN we discourse of mysteries of Faith and Articles of Religion it is certain that the greatest reason in the world to which all other reasons must yield is this God hath said it therefore it is true Now if God had expresly said This which seems to be bread is my body in the natural sence or to that purpose there had been no more to be said in the affair all reasons against it had been but sophismes When Christ hath said This is my body no man that pretends to Christianity doubts of the truth of these words all men submitting their understanding to the obedience of Faith But since Christ did not affirm that he spake it in the natural sence but there are not only in Scripture many prejudices but in common sense much evidence against it if reason also protests against the Article it is the voice of God and to be heard in this question For Nunquam aliud natura aliud sapientia dicit And this the rather because there are so many ways to verifie the words of Christ without this strange and new doctrine of Transubstantiation that in vain will the words of Christ be pretended against reason whereas the words of Christ may be many ways verified if Transubstantiation be condemned as first if Picus Mirandula's proposition be true which in Rome he offered to dispute publickly that Paneitas possit suppositare corpus Domini which I suppose if it be expounded in sensible terms means that it may be bread and Christs body too or secondly if Luthers and the ancient Schoolmens way be true that Christs body be present together with the bread In that sence Christs words might be true though no Transubstantiation and this is the sence which is followed by the Greek Church 3. If Boquinus's way be true that between the bread and Christs body there were a communication of proprieties as there is between the Deity and humanity of our blessed Saviour then as we say God gave himself for us and the blessed Virgin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mother of God and God suffered and rose again meaning that God did it according to his assumed humanity so we may say this is Christs body by the communication of the Idioms or proprieties to the bread with which it is united 4. If our way be admitted that Christ is there after a real spiritual manner the words of Christ are true without any need of admitting Transubstantiation 5. I could instance in the way of Johannes Longus in his Annotations upon the second Apology of Justin Martyr Hoc est corpus meum that is My body is this that is is nourishment spiritual as this is Natural 6. The way of Johannes Caâ—panus would afford me a sixth instance Hoc est corpus meum that is meum as it is mea creatura 7. Johannes à Lasco Bucer and the Socinians refer hoc to the whole ministery and mean that to be representative of Christs body 8. If Rupertus the Abbots way were admitted which was confuted by Algerus and is almost like that of Boquinus that between Christs body and the consecrate symbols there was an hypostatical union then both substances would remain and yet it were a true proposition to affirm of the whole hypostasis this is the body of Christ. Many more I could reckon all which or any of which if it were admitted the words of Christ stand true and uncontradicted and therefore it is a huge folly to quarrel at them that admit not Transubstantiation and to say they deny the words of Christ. And therefore it must not now be said Reason is not to be heard against an Article of Faith for that this is an Article of Faith cannot nakedly be inferred from the words of Christ which are capable of so many meanings Therefore reason in this case is to be heard by them that will give a reason of their faith as it is commanded in Scripture much less is that to be admitted which Fisher or Flued the Jesuit was bold to say to King James that because Transubstantiation seems so much against reason therefore it is to be admitted as if faith were more faith for being against reason Against this for the present I shall oppose the excellent words of S. Austin
against the Article it self although they are most easily answered yet as they bring them against the minutiae and impertinences of the School they are not so easily to be avoided But 4. There is not the same reason because concerning God we know but very few things and concerning the mysterious Trinity that which is revealed is extremely little and it is general without descending to particulars and the difficulty of the seeming arguments against that being taken from our Philosophy and the common manner of speaking cannot be apportion'd and fitted to so great a secret neither can that at all be measur'd by any thing here below But I hope we may have leave to say we understand more concerning bodies and their nature than concerning the persons of the holy Trinity and therefore we may be sure in the matter of bodies to know what is and what is not possible when we can know no measure of truth or error in all the mysteriousnesses of so high and separate superexalted secrets as is that of the holy Trinity 5. Because when the Church for the understanding of this secret of the holy Trinity hath taken words from Metaphysical learning as person hypostasis consubstantiality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such like the words of themselves were apt to change their signification and to put on the sence of the present School But the Church was forc'd to use such words as she had the highest the nearest the most separate and mysterious But when she still kept these words to the same mystery the words swell'd or alter'd in their sence and were exacted according to what they did signifie amongst men in their low notices this begat difficulty in the doctrine of the holy Trinity For better words she had none and all that which they did signifie in our Philosophy could not be applied to this mystery and therefore we have found difficulty and shall for ever till in this Article the Church returns to her ancient simplicity of expression For these reasons I conceive the case is wholly different and the difficulty and secret of one mystery which is certainly revealed cannot warrant us to admit the impossibilities of that which is not revealed Let it appear that God hath affirm'd Transubstantiation and I for my part will burn all my arguments against it and make publick amends The like also is to be said in the matter of Incarnation 29. But if two bodies may be in one place then one body may be in two places Aquinas denies the consequent of this argument but I for my part am careless whether it be true or no. But I shall oppose against it this If two bodies cannot be in one commensurate place then one body cannot be in two places Now concerning this it is certain it implies a contradiction that two bodies should be in one place or possess the place of another till that be cast forth Quod nisi inania sint quâ possent corpora quaeque Transire hand ullâ fieri ratione videres And the great dispute between the Scholars of Epicurus and the Peripateticks concerning vacuity was wholly upon this account Epicurus saying there could be no motion unless the place were empty All the other Sects saying that it was enough that it was made empty by the coming of the new body all agreeing that two bodies could not be together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All agreed that two bodies could not be together and that the first body must be thrust forth by the intromission of the second Quae si non esset inane Non tam sollicito motu privata carerent Quà m genita omninò nulla ratione fuissent Vndique materies quoniam stipata quiescet For the contrary says that two bodies are one For the proper dimensions of a quantitative body are length breadth and thickness Now the extension of the body in these dimensions is measured by the place For the place is nothing else but the measuring and limiting of the thing so measured and limited by these measures and limitations of length breadth and thickness Now if two bodies could be in one place then they must both have one superficies one length one thickness and then either the other hath none or they are but one body and not two or else though they be two bodies and have two superficies yet these two superficies are but one all which are contradictions Bellarmine says that to be coextended to a place is separable from a magnitude or body because it is a thing that is extrinsecal and consequent to the intrinsecal extension of parts and being later than it is by Divine power separable But this is as very a sophisme as all the rest For if what ever in nature i◠later than the substance be separable from it then fire may be without heat or water without moisture a man can be without time for that also is in nature after his essence and he may be without a faculty of will or understanding or of affections or of growing to his state or being nourished and then he will be a strange man who will neither have the power of will or understanding of desiring or avoiding of nourishment or growth or any thing that can distinguish him from a beast or a tree or a stone For these are all later than the essence for they are essential emanations from it Thus also quantity can be separated from a substantial body if every thing that is later than the form can be separated from it And therefore nothing of this can be avoided by saying to fill a place is an act but these other instances are faculties and powers and therefore the act may better be impeded by Divine power the thing remaining the same than by the ablation of faculties This I say cannot justifie the trick 1. Because to be extended into parts is as much an act as to be in a place and yet that is inseparable from magnitude and so confessed by Bellarmine 2. To be in a place is not an act at all any more than to be created to be finite to be limited and it was never yet heard of that esse locatum or esse in loco was reducible to the predicament of action 3. An act is no more separable than a faculty is when the act is as essential as the faculty now for a body to be in a place is as essential to a body as it is for a man to have understanding for this is confessed to be separable by Divine power and the other cannot be more it cannot be naturally 4. If to be in a place be an act it is no otherwise an act than it is an act for a Father actually to have a son and therefore is no more separable this than that and you may as well suppose a Father and no child as a body and no place 5. It is a false proposition to say that place is
expounding the Sacrament Nothing needs to be plainer By the way let me observe this that the words cited by Tertullian out of Jeremy are expounded and recited too but by allusion For there are no such words in the Hebrew Text which is thus to be rendred Corrumpanus veneno cibum ejus and so cannot be referred to the Sacrament unless you will suppose that he fore-signified the poysoning the Emperour by a consecrated wafer But as to the figure this is often said by him for in the first book against Marcion he hath these words again nec reprobavit panem quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat etiam in Sacramentis propriis egens mendicitatibus creatoris He refused not bread by which he represents his own body wanting or using in the Sacraments the meanest things of the Creator For it is not to be imagined that Tertullian should attempt to perswade Marcion that the bread was really and properly Christs body but that he really delivered his body on the Cross that both in the old Testament and here himself gave a figure of it in bread and wine for that was it which the Marcionites denied saying on the cross no real humanity did suffer and he confutes them by saying these are figures and therefore denote a truth 8. However these men are resolved that this new answer shall please them and serve their turn yet some of their fellows great Clerks as themselves did shrink under the pressure of it as not being able to be pleased with so laboured and improbable an answer For Harding against Juel hath these words speaking of this place which interpretation is not according to the true sence of Christs words although his meaning swerve not from the truth And B. Rhenanus the author of the admonition to the Reader De quibusdam Tertulliani dogmat◠seems to confess this to be Tertullians error Error putantium corpus Christi in Eucharistiâ tantùm esse sub figurâ jam olim condemnatus The error of them that think the body of Christ is in the Eucharist only in a figure is now long since condemned But Garetius Bellarmine Justinian Coton Fevardentius Valentia and Vasquez in the recitation of this passage of Tertullian very fairly leave out the words that pinch them and which clears the article and bring the former words for themselves without the interpretation of id est figura corporis mei I may therefore without scruple reckon Tertullian on our side against whose plain words no real exception can lye himself expounding his own meaning in the pursuance of the figurative sence of this mystery 20. Concerning Origen I have already given an account in the ninth Paragraph and other places casually and made it appear that he is a direct opposite to the doctrine of Transubstantiation And the same also of Justin Martyr Paragraph the fifth number 9. Where also I have enumerated divers others who speak upon parts of this question on which the whole depends whither I refer the Reader Only concerning Justin Martyr I shall recite these words of his against Tryphon Figura fuit panis Eucharistiae quem in recordationem passionis facere praecepit The bread of the Eucharist was a figure which Christ the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his passion 21. Clemens Alexandrinus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The blood of Christ is twofold the one is carnal by which we are redeemed from death the other spiritual viz. by which we are anointed And this is to drink the blood of Jesus to be partakers of the incorruption of our Lord. But the power of the word is the Spirit as blood is of the flesh Therefore in a moderated proposition and convenience wine is mingled with water as the Spirit with a man And he receives in the Feast viz. Eucharistical tempered wine unto faith But the Spirit leadeth to incorruption but the mixture of both viz. of drink and the word is called the Eucharist which is praised and is a good gift or grace of which they who are partakers by faith are sanctified in body and soul. Here plainly he calls that which is in the Eucharist Spiritual blood and without repeating the whole discourse is easie and clear And that you may be certain of S. Clement his meaning he disputes in the same chapter against the Encratites who thought it not lawful to drink wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For be ye sure he also did drink wine for he also was a man and he blessed wine when he said Take drink 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my blood the blood of the vine for that word that was shed for many for the remission of sins it signifies allegorically a holy stream of gladness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that the thing which had been blessed was wine he shewed again saying to his disciples I will not drink of the fruit of this vine till I drink it new with you in my fathers kingdom Now S. Clement proving by Christs sumption of the Eucharist that he did drink wine must mean the Sacramental Symbol to be truly wine and Christs blood allegorically that holy stream of gladness or else he had not concluded by that argument against the Encratites Upon which account these words are much to be valued because by our doctrine in this article he only could confute the Encratites as by the same doctrine explicated as we explicate it Tertullian confuted the Marcionites and Theodoret and Gelasius confuted the Nestorians and Eutychians if the doctrine of Transubstantiation had been true these four heresies had by them as to their particular arguments relating to this matter been unconfuted 22. S. Cyprian in his Tractate de unctione which Canisius Harding Bellarmine and Lindan cite hath these words Dedit itaque Dominus noster c. Therefore our Lord in his table in which he did partake his last banquet with his disciples with his own hands gave bread and wine but on the cross he gave to the souldiers his body to be wounded that in the Apostles the sincere truth and the true sincerity being more secretly imprinted he might expound to the Gentiles how wine and bread should be his flesh and blood and by what reasons causes might agree with effects and diverse names and kinds viz. bread and wine might be reduced to one essence and the signifying and the signified might be reckoned by the same words and in his third Epistle he hath these words Vinum quo Christi sanguis ostenditur wine by which Christs blood is showen or declared Here I might cry out as Bellarmine upon a much slighter ground Quid clariùs dici potuit But I forbear being content to enjoy the real benefits of these words without a triumph But I will use it thus far that it shall outweigh the words cited out of the tract de coenâ Domini by Bellarmine by the Rhemists by the Roman Catechism by Perron
and by Gregory de Valentiâ The words are these Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed naturâ mutatus omnipotentiâ verbi factus est caro sicut in personâ Christi c. The bread which the Lord gave to his disciples is changed not in shape but in nature being made flesh by the omnipotency of the word and as in the person of Christ the humanity was seen and the divinity lay hid so in the visible Sacrament the divine essence after an ineffable manner pours it self forth that devotion about the Sacraments might be religion and that a more sincere entrance may be opened to the truth whereof the body and the blood are Sacraments even unto the participation of the Spirit not unto the consubstantiality of Christ. This testimony as Bellarmine says admits of no answer But by his favour it admits of many 1. Bellarmine cites but half of those words and leaves out that which gives him answer 2. The words affirm that that body and blood are but a Sacrament of a reality and truth but if it were really and naturally Christs body then it were it self veritas corpus and not only a Sacrament 3. The truth of which these are Sacramental is the participation of the Spirit that is a Spiritual communication 4. This does not arrive ad Consubstantialitatem Christi to a participation or communion of the substance of Christ which it must needs do if bread were so changed in nature as that it were substantially the body of Christ. 5. These Sermons of S. Cyprians title and name are under the name also of Arnoldus Abbot of Bonavilla in the time of S. Bernard as appears in a M S. in the Library of All-Souls Colledge of which I had the honour sometimes to be a Fellow However it is confessed on all sides that this Tractate is not S. Cyprians and who is the Father of it if Arnoldus be not cannot be known neither his age nor reputation His style sounds like the eloquence of the Monastery being direct Friers Latin as appears by his honorificare amaricare injuriare demembrare sequestrare attitulare spiritalitas t◠supplico and some false latin besides and therefore he ought to pass for nothing which I confess I am sorry for as to this question because to my sence he gives us great advantage in it But I am content to lose what our cause needs not I am certain they can get nothing by him For if the authority were not incompetent the words were impertinent to their purpose but very much against them only let me add out of the same Sermon these words Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam incrementum corporibus ideóque ex consueto effectu fidei nostra adjuta infirmitas sensibili argumento edocta visibilibus Sacramentis inesse vitae aeternae effectum non tam corporali quà m spirituali transitione nos cum Christo uniri That common bread being changed into flesh and blood procures life and increment to our bodies therefore our infirmity being helped with the usual effect of faith is taught by a sensible argument that the effect of eternal life is in visible Sacraments and that we are united to Christ not so much by a corporal as by a Spiritual change If both these discourses be put together let the authority of the writer be what it will the greater the better 23. In the dialogues against the Marcionites collected out of Maximus in the time of Commodus or Severus or thereabouts Origen is brought in speaking thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If as the Marcionites say Christ had neither flesh nor blood of what flesh or of what blood did he giving bread and the chalice as images command his disciples that by these a remembrance of him should be made 24. To the same purpose are the words of Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gave to his disciples the Symbols of Divine oeconomie commanding the image or type of his own body to be made and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They received a command according to the constitution of the new Testament to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the table by the symbols of his body and healthful blood 25. S. Ephrem the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch is dogmatical and decretory in this question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The body of Christ received by the faithful departs not from his sensible substance and is undivided from a spiritual grace He adds the similitude and parity of baptism to this mystery for even baptism being wholly made Spiritual and being that which is the same and proper of the sensible substance I mean of water saves and that which is born doth not perish I will not descant upon these or any other words of the Fathers I alledge for if of their own natural intent they do not teach our doctrine I am content they should pass for nothing 26. S. Epiphanius affirming man to be like God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some image or similitude not according to Nature illustrates it by the similitude of the blessed Sacrament We see that our Saviour took into his hands as the Evangelist hath it that he arose from supper and took those things and when he had given thanks he said This is mine and this we see it is not equal it is not like not to the image in the flesh not to the invisible Deity not to the proportion of members for this is a round form 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and cannot perceive any thing or is insensible according to power or faculty and he would by grace say This is mine and this and every man believes the word that is spoken for he that believeth not him to be true is fallen from grace and salvation Now the force of Epiphanius his argument consisting in this that we are like to God after his image but yet not according to nature as the Sacramental bread is like the body of Christ it is plain that the Sacramental species are the body of Christ and his blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the image or representment not according to Nature but according to Grace 25. Macarius his words are plain enough 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Church is offered bread and wine the antitype of his flesh and of his blood and they that partake of the bread that appears do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ. 26. S. Gregory Nazianzen speaking of the Pascha saith Jam potestatis participes erimus c. Now we shall be partakers of the Paschal supper but still in figure though more clear than in the old law For the legal passeover I will not be afraid to speak it was a more obscure figure of a figure S. Ambrose is of the same perswasion Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est
figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi Make this ascribed oblation reasonable and acceptable which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. And again Mira potentia c. it is a wonderful power of God which makes that the bread should remain what it is and yet be changed into another thing And again How much more operative is the word of Christ that the things be what they were and yet be changed into another and so that which was bread before consecration now is the body of Christ Hoc tamen impossibile est ut panis sit corpus Christi Sed haec verba ad sanum intellectum sunt intelligenda ita solvit Hugo saith the Gloss in Gratian which is an open defiance of the doctrine of S. Ambrose affirming it to be impossible But because these words pinch severely they have retrenched the decisive words and leave out sint and make them to run thus that the things be changed into another which corruption is discovered by the citation of these words in Paschasius Guitmond Bertram Algerus Ivo Carnotensis Gratian and Lombard But in another place he calls the mystical chalice the type of the blood and that Christ is offered here in imagine in type image or representation in coelo in veritate the truth the substance is in heaven And again This therefore truly is the Sacrament of his flesh Our Lord Jesus himself says this is my body Before the blessing by the words it was named another species or kind after the consecration the body of Christ is signified 27. S. Chrysostome is brought on both sides and his Rhetorick hath cast him on the Roman side but it also bears him beyond it and his divinity and sober opinions have fixt him on ours How to answer the expressions hyperbolical which he often uses is easie by the use of rhetorick and customs of the words But I know not how any man can sensibly answer these words For as before the bread is sanctified we name it bread but the Divine grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is freed from the name of bread but it is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords body although the nature of bread remains in it To the same purpose are those words on the Twenty second Psalm published amongst his works though possibly they were of some other of that time or before or after it matters not to us but much to them for if he be later and yet esteemed a Catholick as it is certain he was and the man a-while supposed to be S. Chrysostome it is the greater evidence that it was long before the Church received their doctrine The words are these That table he hath prepared to his servants and his maidens in their sight that he might every day shew us in the Sacrament according to the order of Melchisedeck bread and wine to the likeness of the body and blood of Christ. To the same purpose is that saying in the Homilies of whoever is the Author of that opus imperfectum upon S. Mat. Si igitur haec vasa c. If therefore these vessels being sanctified it be so dangerous to transfer them to private uses in which the body of Christ is not but the mystery of his body is contained how much more concerning the vessels of our bodies c. Now against these testimonies they make an out-cry that they are not S. Chrysostoms works and for this last the book is corrupted and they think in this place by some one of Berengarius's scholars for they cannot tell Fain they would believe it but this kind of talk is a resolution not to yield but to proceed against all evidence for that this place is not corrupted but was originally the sence of the Author of the Homilies is highly credible by the faith of all the old MS. and there is in the publick Library of Oxford an excellent MS. very ancient that makes faith in this particular but that some one of their scholars might have left these words out of some of their copies were no great wonder though I do not find they did but that they foisted in a marginal note affirming that these words are not in all old copies an affirmation very confident but as the case stands to very little purpose But upon this account nothing can be proved from sayings of Fathers For either they are not their own works but made by another or 2. They are capable of another sence or 3. The places are corrupted by Hereticks or 4. It is not in some old copies which pretences I am content to let alone if they upon this account will but transact the question wholly by Scripture and common sence 5. It matters not at all what he is so he was not esteemed an Heretick and that he was not it is certain since by themselves these books are put among the works of S. Chrysostom and themselves can quote them when they seem to do them service All that I infer from hence is this that whensoever these books were writ some man esteemed a good Catholick was not of the Roman perswasion in the matter of the Sacrament therefore their opinion is not Catholick But that S. Chrysostom may not be drawn from his right of giving testimony and interpretation of his words in other places in his 23 Homily upon the first of the Corinthians which are undoubtedly his own he saith As thou eatest the body of the Lord so they viz. the faithful in the old Testament did eat Manna as thou drinkest blood so they the water of the rock For though the things which are made be sensible yet they are given spiritually not according to the consequence of nature but according to the grace of a gift and with the body they also nourish the soul leading unto faith 28. The next I produce for evidence in this case is S. Austin concerning whom it is so evident that he was a Protestant in this Article that truly it is a strange boldness to deny it and upon equal terms no mans mind in the world can be known for if all that he says in this question shall be reconcilable to Transubstantiation I know no reason but it may be possible but a witty man may pretend when I am dead that in this discourse I have pleaded for the doctrine of the Roman Church I will set his words down nakedly without any Gloss upon them and let them do by themselves as much as they can Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem c. For if the Sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they were no Sacraments at all But from this similitude for the most part they receive the things themselves As therefore according to a certain manner the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the Sacrament of the blood of
measure so that in effect they are refused for being good Christians But after this it happened again that the words of type and image were disliked in the question of the holy Sacrament by the Emperor Charles the great his Tutor Alcuinus and the Assembly at Frankfort but it was in opposition to the Council of Constantinople that called it the true image of Christs body and of the Nicene Council who decreed the worship of Images for if the Sacrament were an Image as they of CP said then it might be lawful to give reverence and worship to some Images for although these two Synods were enemies to each other yet the proposition of one might serve the design of the other but therefore the Western Doctors of that age speaking against the decree of this did also mislike the expression of that meaning that the Sacrament is not a type or image as a type is taken for a prefiguration a shadow of things to come like the legal ceremonies but in opposition to that is a body and a truth yet still it is a Sacrament of the body a mystery which is the same in effect with that which the Fathers taught in their so frequent using these words of Type c. for 750. years together And concerning this I only note the words of Charles the Emperor Ep. ad Alcuinum after the Synod Our Lord hath given the Bread and the Chalice in figurâ corporis sui sui sanguinis in the figure of his body and blood But setting the authority aside for if these men of CP be not allowed yet the others are and it is notorious that the Greek Fathers did frequently call the bread and wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin Fathers call them signs similitudes figures types images therefore there must be something pretended to stop this great out-cry and insupportable prejudice of so great so clear authority After many trials as that by antitypes they mean exemplars that it is only before consecration not after and such other little devices of which they themselves quickly grew weary at last the craftiest of them came to this that the body of Christ under the Species might well be said to be the sign of the same body and blood as it was on the Cross so Bellarmine That 's the answer and that they are hard put to it you may guess by the meanness of the answer For besides that nothing can be like it self Idem non est simile the body as it is under the Species is glorified immortal invisible impassible indivisible insensible and this is it which he affirms to be the sign that is which is appointed to signifie and represent a body that was humbled tormented visible mortal sensible torn bleeding and dying So that here is a sign nothing like the thing signified and an invisible sign of a visible body which is the greatest absurdity in nature and in the use of things which is imaginable but besides this this answer if it were a proper and sensible account of any thing yet it is besides the mark for that the Fathers in these allegations affirm that the Species are the signs that is that bread and wine or the whole Sacrament is a sign of that body which is exhibited in effect and Spiritual power they dreamt not this dream it was long before themselves did dream it They that were but the day before them having as I noted before other fancies I deny not but the Sacramental body is the sign of the true body crucified but that the body glorified should be but a sign of the true body crucified is a device fit for themselves to fancy To this sence are those words cited by Lombard and Gratian out of S. Austin in the sentences of Prosper Caro ejus est quam formâ panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus sanguis quem sub specie vini potamus Caro viz. Carnis sanguis sacramentum est sanguinis carne sanguine utroque invisibili intelligibili spirituali significatur corpus Christi visibile plenum gratiae divinae majestatis That is It is his flesh which under the form of bread we receive in the Sacrament and under the form of wine we drink his blood Now that you may understand his meaning he tells you this is true in the Sacramental or Spiritual sence only for he adds flesh is the Sacrament of flesh and blood of blood by both flesh and blood which are invisible intelligible and Spiritual is signified the visible body of Christ full of grace and Divine majesty In which words here is a plain confutation of their main Article and of this whimsie of theirs For as to the particular whereas Bellarmine says that Christs body real and natural is the type of the body as it was crucified S. Austin says that the natural body is a type of that body which is glorified not the glorified body of the crucified 2. That which is a type is flesh in a spiritual sence not in a natural and therefore it can mean nothing but this That the Sacramental body is a figure and type of the real 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this thing is noted by the Gloss of Gratian. Caro i. e. species carnis sub qua latet corpus Christi c. The flesh that is the Species of it under which it lies are the Sacrament of the flesh so that the being of a Sacrament of Christs body is wholly relative to the Symbols not to the body as if the body were his own sign and his own Sacrament 30. Next to this heap of testimonies I must repeat the words of Theodoret and Gelasius which though known in this whole question yet being plain certain and unanswerable relying upon a great Article of the religion even the union of the two natures of Christ into one person without the change of substances must be as sacred and untouched by any trifling answer as the Article it self ought to be preserved The case was this The Eutychian Hereticks denied the natures of Christ to be united in one person that is they denied him to be both God and Man saying his humanity was taken into his divinity after his ascension The Fathers disputing against them say the substances remain intire though joyned in the person The Eutychians said this was impossible But as in the Sacrament the bread was changed into Christs body so in the ascension was the humanity turned into the divinity To this Theodoret answers in a Dialogue between the Eutychians under the name of Eranistes and himself the Orthodox Christ honoured the symbols and signs which are seen with the title of his body and blood not changing the nature but to nature adding grace The words are not capable of an answer if we observe that he says there is no change made but only grace superadded in all things else the things are the same And again For neither do
of their Goods Ridiculous What then Saint Austin himself tells us by so much as they lov'd their goods more or less by so much sooner or later they shall be sav'd And what he said of this kind of sin viz. too much worldliness with the same Reason he might suppose of others this he thought possible but of this he was not sure and therefore it was not then an Article of Faith and though now the Church of Rome hath made it so yet it appears that it was not so from the beginning but is part of their new fashion'd faith And E. W. striving so impossibly and so weakly to avoid the pressure of this Argument should do well to consider whether he have not more strained his Conscience than the words of Saint Austin But this matter must not pass thus Saint Austin repeats this whole passage verbatim in his Answer to the 8. Quest. of Dulcitius Quest. 1. and still answers in this and other appendant Questions of the same nature viz. Whether Prayers for the dead be available c. Quest. 2. And whether upon the instant of Christ's appearing he will pass to judgment Quest 3. In these things which we have describ'd our and the infirmity of others may be so exercis'd and instructed nevertheless that they pass not for Canonical Authority And in the Answer to the first Question he speaks in the style of a doubtful person Whether men suffer such things in this life only or also such certain judgments follow even after this life this Understanding of this sentence is not as I suppose abhorrent from truth The same words he also repeats in his Book de fide operibus Chap. 16. There is yet another place of S. Austin in which it is plain he still is a doubting person in the Question of Purgatory His sence is this After the death of the body until the resurrection if in the interval the spirits of the dead are said to suffer that kind of fire which they feel not who had not such manners and loves in their life-time that their wood hay and stubble ought to be consum'd but others feel who brought such buildings along with them whether there only or whether here and there or whether therefore here that it might not be there that they feel a fire of a transitory tribulation burning their secular buildings though escaping from damnation I reprove it not for peradventure it is true So Saint Austin's peradventure yea is alwayes peradventure nay and will the Bigots of the Roman Church be content with such a confession of faith as this of Saint Austin in the present Article I believe not But now after all this I will not deny but Saint Austin was much inclin'd to believe Purgatory fire and therefore I shall not trouble my self to answer the citations to that purpose which Bellarmine and from him these Transcribers bring out of this Father though most of them are drawn out of Apocryphal spurious and suspected pieces as his Homilies de S. S. c. yet that which I urge is this that Saint Austin did not esteem this to be a Doctrine of the Church no Article of Faith but a disputable Opinion and yet though he did incline to the wrong part of the Opinion yet it is very certain that he sometimes speaks expresly against this Doctrine and other times speaks things absolutely inconsistent with the Opinion of Purgatory which is more than an Argument of his confessed doubting for it is a declaration that he understood nothing certain in this affair but that the contrary to his Opinion was the more probable And this appears in these few following words Saint Austin hath these words Some suffer temporary punishments in this life only others after death others both now and then Bellarmine and from him Diaphanta urges this as a great proof of Saint Austin's Doctrine But he destroyes it in the words immediately following and makes it useless to the hypothesis of the Roman Church This shall be before they suffer the last and severest judgment meaning as Saint Austin frequently does such sayings of the General conflagration at the end of the world But whether he does so or no yet he adds But all of them come not into the everlasting punishments which after the Judgment shall be to them who after death suffer the temporary By which Doctrine of Saint Austin viz. that those who are in his Purgatory shall many of them be damn'd and the temporary punishments after death do but usher in the Eternal after judgment he destroyes the salt of the Roman fire who imagines that all that go to Purgatory shall be sav'd Therefore this testimony of Saint Austin as it is nothing for the avail of the Roman Purgatory so by the appendage it is much against it which Coquaeus Torrensis and especially Cardinal Perron observing have most violently corrupted these words by falsely translating them So Perron Tous ceux qui souffrent des peines temporelles apres lâ— mort ne viennent pas aux peines Eternelles qui auront tien apres le judgement which reddition is expresly against the sence of Saint Austin's words 2. But another hypothesis there is in Saint Austin to which without dubitation he does peremptorily adhere which I before intimated viz. that although he admit of Purgatory pains after this life yet none but such as shall be at the day of Judgment Whoever therefore desires to avoid the eternal pains let him be not only baptiz'd but also justified in Christ and truly pass from the Devil unto Christ. But let him not think that there shall be any Purgatory pains but before that last and dreadful Judgment meaning not only that there shall be none to cleanse them after the day of Judgment but that then at the approach of that day the General fire shall try and purge And so himself declares his own sence All they that have not Christ in the foundation are argued or reproved when in the day of Judgment but they that have Christ in the foundation are chang'd that is purg'd who build upon this foundation wood hay stubble So that in the day of Judgment the trial and escape shall be for then shall the trial and the condemnation be But yet more clear are his words in other places So at the setting of the Sun that is at the end viz. of the world the day of judgment is signified by that fire dividing the carnal which are to be sav'd by fire and those who are to be damned in the fire nothing is plainer than that Saint Austin understood that those who are to be sav'd so as by fire are to be sav'd by passing through the fire at the day of judgment that was his Opinion of Purgatory And again out of these things which are spoken it seems more evidently to appear that there shall be certain purgatory pains of some persons in that judgment For what thing else
but therefore this is bread still here the Consequence is good and is so still when the subject of the proposition is something real and not in appearance only Because whatsoever is but in appearance and pretence is a Non-Ens in respect of that real thing which it counterfeits And therefore it follows not This is not a common dove therefore it is a Dove because if this be model'd into a right proposition nihil supponit there is no subject in it for it cannot in this case be said This Dove is no common Dove but this which is like a Dove is not a common Dove and these persons which look like men are not common men And the rule for this and the reason too is Non entis nulla sunt praedicata To which also this may be added that in the proposition as C. Perron expresses it the negation is not the Adjective but the substantive part of the predicate It is no common Dove where the negative term relates to the Dove not to common It is no Dove and the words not common are also equivocal and as it can signifie extraordinary so it can signifie Natural But if the subject of the proposition be something real then the consequent is good as if you bring a Pigeon from Japan all red you may say This is no common Pigeon and your argument is still good therefore it is a Pigeon So if you take sugred bread or bread made of Indian wheat you saying this is no common bread do mean it is extraordinary or unusual but it is bread still and so if it be said this bread is Eucharistical it will follow rightly therefore this is bread For in this case the predicate is only an infinite or Negative term but the subject is suppos'd and affirm'd And this is also more apparent if the proposition be affirmative and the terms be not infinite as it is in the present case This bread is Eucharistical I have now I suppose clear'd the words of Justin M. and expounded them to his own sence and the truth but his sence will further appear in other words which I principally rely upon in this quotation For speaking that of the Prophet Isai. Panis dabitur ei aqua ejus fidelis he hath these words It appears sufficiently That in this prophecie he speaks of bread which our Lord Christ hath deliver'd to us to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a memorial that he is made a body for them that believe in him for whose sake he was made passible and of the Cup which for the recordation of his blood he delivered to them to do that is give thanks or celebrate the Eucharist These are the words of Justin Where 1. According to the first simplicity of the primitive Church he treats of this mystery according to the style of the evangelists and S. Paul and indeed of our Blessed Lord himself commanding all this whole mystery to be done in memory of him 2. If S. Justin had meant any thing of the new fabrick of this mystery he must have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bread made his body though this also would not have done their work for them but when he says he gave the bread only for the remembrance of his being made a body the bread must needs be the sign figure and representation of that body 3. Still he calls it bread even then when Christ gave it still it is wine when the Eucharist is made when the faithful have given thanks and if it be bread still we also grant it to be Christs body and then there is a figure and the things figured the one visible and the other invisible and this is it which I affirmed to be the sence of Justin Martyr And it is more perfectly explicated by Saint Greg. Naz. calling the Pascal Lamb a figure of a figure of which I shall yet give an account in this Section But to make this yet more clear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We do not receive these as common bread or common drink but as by the word of God Jesus Christ our Lord was made flesh and for our salvation had flesh and blood so are we taught that that very nourishment on which by the prayers of his word thanks are given by which our flesh and blood are nourished by change is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus Here S. Justin compares the consecration of the Eucharist by prayer to the incarnation of Christ the thing with the thing to shew it is not common bread but bread made Christs body he compares not the manner of one with the manner of the other as Cardinal Perron would fain have it believed for if it were so it would not only destroy an Article of Christian faith but even of the Roman too for if the changes were in the same manner then either the man is Transubstantiated into God or else the bread is not Transubstantiated into Christs body but the first cannot be because it would destroy the hypostatical Union and make Christ to be one nature as well as one person but for the latter part of the Dilemma viz. that the bread is not Transubstantiated whether it be true or false it cannot be affirmed from hence and therefore the Cardinal labours to no purpose and without consideration of what may follow But now these words make very much against the Roman hypothesis and directly prove the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the consecrated bread that is after it is consecrated to be natural nourishment of the body and therefore to be Christs body only spiritually and Sacramentally unless it can be two substances at the same time Christs body and bread in the Natural sence which the Church of Rome at this day will not allow and if it were allowed it would follow that Christ body should be Transubstantiated into our body and suffer the very worst changes which in our eating and digestion and separation happen to common bread This argument relies upon the concurrent Testimony of many of the ancient Fathers besides Justin Martyr especially S. Irenaeus and certainly destroys the whole Roman Article of Transubstantiation for if the Eucharistical bread nourishes the body then it is still the substance of bread for accidents do not nourish and quantity or quality is not the subject or term of Nutrition but reparation of substance by a substantial change of one into another But of this enough Eusebius is next alledged in the Dissuasive but his words though pregnant and full of proof against the Roman hypothesis are by all the Contra-scribers let alone only one of them says that the place of the quotation is not rightly mark'd for the first three chapters are not extant well but the words are and the last chapter is which is there quoted and to the 10. chapter the Printer should have more carefully attended and not omit the Cypher which I suppose he would
not cannot profit himself how can he that stands by who understands no more be profited by that which does him that speaks no good For God understands though he does not and yet he that so prays reaps no benefit to himself and therefore neither can any man that understands no more The affirmation is plain and the reason cogent To the same purpose are the words of S. Chrysostom which A. L. himself quotes out of him If one speaks in only the Persian tongue or some other strange tongue but knows not what he saith certainly he will be a barbarian even to himself and not to another only because he knows not the force of the words This is no more than what S. Paul said before him but they all say that he who hears and understands not whether it be the speaker or the scholar is but a Barbarian Thus also S. Ambrose in his Commentary upon the words of S. Paul The Apostle says It is better to speak a few words that are open or understood that all may understand than to have a long oration in obscurity That 's his sence for reading and preaching Now for prayer he adds The unskilful man hearing what he understands not knows not when the prayer ends and answers not Amen that is so be it or it is true that the blessing may be established and a little after If ye meet together to edifie the Church those things ought to be said which the hearers may understand For what profit is it to speak with a tongue when he that hears is not profited Therefore he ought to hold his peace in the Church that they who can profit the hearers may speak S. Austin compares singing in the Church without understanding to the chattering of Parrots and Magpies Crows and Jackdaws But to sing with understanding is by the will of God given to man And we who sing the Divine praises in the Church must remember that it is written Blessed is the people that understands singing of praises Therefore most beloved what with a joyn'd voice we have sung we must understand and discern with a serene heart To the same purpose are the words of Lyra and Aquinas which I shall not trouble the Reader withall here but have set them down in the Margent that the strange confidence of these Romanists out-facing notorious and evident words may be made if possible yet more conspicuous In pursuance of this doctrine of S. Paul and the Fathers the Primitive Christians in their several Ages and Countries were careful that the Bible should be translated into all languages where Christianity was planted That the Bibles were in Greek is notorious and that they were us'd among the people S. Chrysostom homil 1. in Joh. 8. is witness that it was so or that it ought to be so For he exhorts Vacemus ergo scripturis dilectissimi c. Let us set time apart to be conversant in the Scripture at least in the Gospels let us frequently handle them to imprint them in our minds which because the Jews neglected they were commanded to have their books in their hands but let us not have them in our hands but in our houses and in our hearts by which words we may easily understand that all the Churches of the Greek communion had the Bible in their vulgar tongue and were called upon to use them as Christians ought to do that is to imprint them in their hearts and speaking of S. John and his Gospel he says that the Syrians Indians Persians and Ethiopians and infinite other nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they grew wise by translating his S. Johns doctrines into their several languages But it is more that S. Austin says The divine Scripture by which help is supplied to so great diseases proceeded from one language which opportunely might be carried over the whole world that being by the various tongues of interpreters scattered far and wide it might be made known to the Nations for their salvation And Theodoret speaks yet more plainly We have manifestly shown to you the inexhausted strength of the Apostolick and prophetick doctrine for the Vniversal face of the Earth whatsoever is under the Sun is now full of those words For the Hebrew books are not only translated into the Greek idiom but into the Roman tongue the Egyptian Persian Indian Armenian Scythian Sauromatick languages and that I may speak once for all into all tongues which at this day the Nations use By these authorities of these Fathers we may plainly see how different the Roman doctrine and practice is from the sentiment and usages of the Primitive Church and with what false confidence the Roman adversaries deny so evident truth having no other way to make their doctrine seem tolerable but by out-facing the known sayings of so many excellent persons and especially of S. Paul who could not speak his mind in apt and intelligible words if he did not in his Epistle to the Corinthians exhort the Church to pray and prophesie so as to be understood by the Catechumens and by all the people that is to do otherwise than they do in the Roman Church Christianity is a simple wise intelligible and easie Religion and yet if a man will resolve against any proposition he may wrangle himself into a puzle and make himself not to understand it so though it be never so plain what is plainer than the testimony of their own Cajetan That it were more for the edification of the Church that the prayers were in the vulgar tongue He says no more than S. Paul says and he could not speak it plainer And indeed no man of sence can deny it unless he affirms at the same time that it is better to speak what we understand not than what we do or that it were better to serve God without that noble faculty than with it that is that the way of a Parrot and a Jackdaw were better than the way of a man and that in the service of God the Priests and the people are to differ as a man and a bird But besides all this was not Latin it self when it was first us'd in Divine service the common tongue and generally understood by many Nations and very many Colonies and if it was then the use of the Church to pray with the understanding why shall it not be so now however that it was so then and is not so now demonstrates that the Church of Rome hath in this material point greatly innovated Let but the Roman Pontifical be consulted and there will be yet found a form of ordination of Readers in which it is said that they must study to read distinctly and plainly that the people may understand But now it seems that labour is sav'd And when a notorious change was made in this affair we can tell by calling to mind the following story The Moravians did say Mass in the Slavonian tongue for
that those who are under our Charges should know the force of the Resurrection of Christ and the conduct of the Spirit and live according to the purity of God and the light of the Gospel To this let us cooperate with all wisdom and earnestness and knowledge and spiritual understanding And there is no better way in the world to do this than by ministring to persons singly in the conduct of their Repentance which as it is the work of every man so there are but few persons who need not the conduct of a spiritual guide in the beginnings and progressions of it To the assistance of this work I have now put my Symbol having by the sad experience of my own miseries and the calamities of others to whose restitution I have been called to minister been taught something of the secret of Souls and I have reason to think that the words of our dearest Lord to S. Peter were also spoken to me Tu autem conversus confirma fratres I hope I have received many of the mercies of a repenting sinner and I have felt the turnings and varieties of spiritual entercourses and I have often observed the advantages in ministring to others and am most confident that the greatest benefits of our office may with best effect be communicated to souls in personal and particular Ministrations In the following book I have given advices and have asserted many truths in order to all this I have endeavoured to break in pieces almost all those propositions upon the confidence of which men have been negligent of severe and strict living I have cancell'd some false grounds upon which many answers in Moral Theologie us'd to be made to inquiries in Cases of Conscience I have according to my weak ability described all the necessities and great inducement of a holy life and have endeavoured to do it so plainly that it may be useful to every man and so inoffensively that it may hurt no man I know but one Objection which I am likely to meet withall excepting those of my infirmity and disability which I cannot answer but by protesting the piety of my purposes but this only that in the Chapter of Original sin I speak otherwise than is spoken commonly in the Church of England whos 's ninth Article affirms that the natural propensity to evil and the perpetual lusting of the flesh against the spirit deserves the anger of God and damnation against which I so earnestly seem to dispute in the sixth Chapter of my Book To this I answer that it is one thing to say a thing in its own nature deserves damnation and another to say it is damnable to all those persons in whom it is subjected The thing it self that is our corrupted nature or our nature of corruption does leave us in the state of separation from God by being unable to bear us to Heaven imperfection of nature can never carry us to the perfections of glory and this I conceive to be all that our Church intends for that in the state of nature we can only fall short of Heaven and be condemn'd to a poena damni is the severest thing that any sober person owns and this I say that Nature alone cannot bring us to God without the regeneration of the Spirit and the grace of God we can never go to Heaven but because this Nature was not spoil'd by Infants but by persons of reason and we are all admitted to a new Covenant of Mercy and Grace made with Adam presently after his fall that is even before we were born as much as we were to a participation of sin before we were born no man can perish actually for that because he is reconcil'd by this He that says every sin is damnable and deserves the anger of God says true but yet some persons that sin of mere infirmity are accounted by God in the rank of innocent persons So it is in this Article Concupiscence remains in the regenerate and yet concupiscence hath the nature of sin but it brings not condemnation These words explain the 〈◊〉 Original imperfection is such a thing as is even in the regenerate and it is of the nature of sin that is it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many but yet it is not daâ—â—ing because as it is subjected in unconsenting persons it loses its own natural venome and relation to guiltiness that is it may of it self in its abstracted nature be a sin and deserve Gods anger viz. in some persons in all them that consent to it but that which will always be in persons that shall never be damned that is in infants and regenerate shall 〈◊〉 damn them And this is the main of what I affirm And since the Church of England intended that Article against the Doctrine of the Pelagians I suppose I shall not be thought to recede from the spirit and sence of the Article though I use differing manners of expression because my way of explicating this question does most of all destroy the Pelagian Heresie since although I am desirous to acquit the dispensation of God and his Justice from my imputation or suspicion of wrong and am loth to put our sins upon the account of another yet I impute all our evils to the imperfections of our nature and the malice of our choice which does most of all demonstrate not only the necessity of Grace but also of Infant Baptism and then to accuse this Doctrine of Pelagianism or any newer name of Heresie will seem like impotency and weakness of spirit but there will be nothing of truth or learning in it And although this Article was penn'd according to the style of the Schools as they then did loâ—e to speak yet the hardest word in it is capable of such a sence as complies with the intendment of that whole sixth Chapter For though the Church of England professes her self fallible and consequently that all her truths may be peaceably improved yet I do think that she is not actually deceiv'd and also that divers eminently learned do consent in my sence of that Article However I am so truly zealous for her honour and peace that I wholly submit all that I say there or any where else to her most prudent judgment And though I may most easily be deceived yet I have given my reasons for what I say and desire to be tried by them not by prejudice and numbers and zeal and if any man resolves to understand the Article in any other sence than what I have now explicated all that I shall say is that it may be I cannot reconcile my Doctrine to his explication it is enough that it is consistent with the Article it self in its best understanding and compliance with the truth it self and the justification of God However he that explicates the Article and thinks it means as he says does all the honour he can to the Authority whose words if he does not understand yet the sanction
God is created in righteousness and true holiness Let no man deceive you with vain words for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience Be not ye therefore partakers with them * For ye were sometimes darkness but now are ye light in the Lord walk as children of light * For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth * Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord * And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them * See then that ye walk circumspectly not as fools but as wise * Redeeming the time because the days are evil * Wherefore be ye not unwise but understanding what the will of the Lord is If ye then be risen with Christ seek those things which are above where Christ fitteth on the right hand of God Set your affection on things above not on things on the earth * For ye are dead and your life is hidden with Christ in God * Mortifie therefore your members which are upon the earth fornication uncleanness inordinate affection evil concupiscence and covetousness which is idolatry * But now you also pâ—t off all these anger wrath malice blasphemy filthy communication out of your mouth * Lie not one to another seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds * And have put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men Teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live soberly righteously and godly in this present world * Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ * Who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purifie unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses let us lay aside every weight and the sin which doth so easily beset us and let us run with patience the race that is set before us Looking unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our faith who for the joy that was set before him endured the Cross despising the shame and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God * Follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord * Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you and thereby many be defiled Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness and receive with meekness the ingraffed word which is able to save your souls * But be ye doers of the word and not hearers only deceiving your own selves Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust And besides this giving all diligence add to your faith vertue and to vertue knowledge * And to knowledge temperance and to temperance patience and to patience godliness * And to godliness brotherly kindness and to brotherly kindness charity * For if these things be in you and abound they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. * But he that lacketh these things is blind and cannot see far off and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind be sober and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children not fashioning your selves according to the former lusts in your ignorance * But as he which hath called you is holy so be ye holy in all manner of conversation * Because it is written Be ye holy for I am holy Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree that we being dead to sins should live unto righteousness by whose stripes ye were healed The indispensable necessity of a good life represented in the following Scriptures WHosoever breaketh one of these least Commandments and shall teach men so he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven but whosoever shall do and teach them the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven And why call ye me Lord Lord and do not the things which I say Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you I beseech you therefore brethren by the mercies of God that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable unto God which is your reasonable service And be not conformed to this world but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind that ye may prove what is that good that acceptable and perfect will of God Who will render to every man according to his deeds To them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality eternal life * But unto them that are contentious and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness indignation and wrath * Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doth evil of the Jew first and also of the Gentile * But glory honour and peace to every man that worketh good to the Jew first and also to the Gentile Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the Commandments of God Therefore my beloved brethren be ye stedfast unmoveable always abounding in the work of the Lord forasmuch as you know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but a new creature For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith which worketh by love For we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them And this I pray that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment That ye may approve things that are excellent that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ * Being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ unto the glory and praise of God Furthermore then we beseech you brethren and exhort you by the Lord Jesus that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God so ye would abound more and more * For ye know what Commandments we gave by the Lord Jesus * For this is the will of God even your sanctification As you know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you as a Father doth
can they be differenc'd but by something that is besides the nature of the action it self A thought of theft and an unclean thought have nothing by which they can excel each other but when you cloath them with the dress of active circumstances they grow greater or less respectively because then two or three sins are put together and get a new name 7. III. There is but one way more by which sins can get or lose degrees and that is the different proportions of our affections This indeed relates to God more immediately and by him alone is judg'd but the former being invested with material circumstances can be judg'd by men But all that God reserves for his own portion of the Sacrifice is the Heart that is our love and choice and therefore the degrees of love or hatred is that measure by which God makes differing judgments of them For by this it is that little sins become great and great sins become little If a Jew had maliciously touch'd a dead body in the days of Easter it had been a greater crime than if in the violence of his temptation he had unwillingly will'd to commit an act of fornication He that delights in little thefts because they are breaches of Gods Law or burns a Prayer-book because he hates Religion is a greater criminal than he that falls into a material heresie by an invincible or less discerned deception Secure but to God your affections and he will secure your innocence or pardon for men live or die by their own measures If a man spits in the face of a Priest to defie Religion or shaves the beard of an Embassador to disgrace the Prince as it hapned to Davids Messengers his sin is greater than if he kill'd the Priest in his own just defence or shot the Embassador through the heart when he intended to strike a Lion For every negligence every disobedience being against Charity or the love of God by interpretation this superaddition of direct malice is open enmity against him and therefore is more severely condemned by him who sees every thought and degrees of passion and affection For the increase of malice does aggravate the sin just as the complication of material instances Every degree of malice being aâ— distinct and commensurate a sin as any one external instance that hath a name and therefore many degrees of malice combine and grow greater as many sins conjoyn'd in one action they differ only in Nature not in Morality just as a great number and a great weight So that in effect all sins are differenc'd by complication only that is either of the external or the internal instances 8. IV. Though the negligence or the malice be naturally equal yet sometimes by accident the sins may be unequal not only in the account of men but also before God too but it is upon the account of both the former It is when the material effect being different upon men God hath with greater caution secur'd such interests So that by interpretation the negligence is greater because the care was with greater earnestness commanded or else because in such cases the sin is complicated for such sins which do most mischief have besides their proper malignity the evil of uncharitableness or haâ—ing our brother In some cases God requires one hand and in others both Now he that puts but one of his fingers to each of them his negligence is in nature the same but not in value because where more is required the defect was greater If a man be equally careless of the life of his Neighbours Son and his Neighbours Cock although the will or attendance to the action be naturally equal that is none at all yet morally and in the divine account they differ because the proportions of duty and obligation were different and therefore more ought to have been put upon the one than upon the other just as he is equally clothed that wears a single garment in Summer and Winter but he is not equally warm unless he that wears a silk Mantle when the Dog-star rages claps on Furrs when the cold North-star changes the waters into rocks 9. V. Single sins done with equal affection or disaffection do not differ in degrees as they relate to God but in themselves are equally prevarications of the Divine Commandment As he tells a lie that says the Moon is foursquare as great as he that says there were but three Apostles or that Christ was not the Son of Man and as every lie is an equal sin against truth so every sin is an equal disobedience and recession from the Rule But some lies are more against Charity or Justice or Religion than others are and so are greater by complication but against truth they are all equally oppos'd and so are all sins contrary to the Commandment And in this sence is that saying of S. Basil Primò enim scire illud convenit differentiam minorum majorum nusquam in Novo Testamento reperiri Siquidem una est eadem sententia adversus quaelibet peccata cum Dominus dixerit Qui facit peccatum servus est peccati item Sermo quem loquutus sum vobis ille judicabit eum in Novissimo die Johannes â—ociferans dicat Qui contumax est in filium non videbit vitam aeternam sed ira Dei manet super eum cum contumacia non in discrimine peccatorum sed in violatione praecepti positam habeat futuri supplicii denunciationem The difference of great and little sins is no where to be found in the New Testament One and the same sentence is against all sins our Lord saying He that doth sin is the servant of sin and the word that I have spoken that shall judge you in the last day and John crieth out saying He that is disobedient to the Son shall not see eternal life but the wrath of God abideth on him for this contumacy or disobedience does not consist in the difference of sins but in the violation of the Divine Law and for that it is threatned with eternal pain But besides these Arguments from Scripture he adds an excellent Reason Prorsus autem si id nobis permittitur ut in peccatis hoc magnum illud exiguum appellemus invicto argumento concluditur magnum micâ—ique esse illud à quo quisque superatur contráque exiguum quod unusquisque ipse superat Vt in athletis qui vicit fortis est qui autem victus est imbecillior eo unde victus est quisque ille sit If it be permitted that men shall call this sin great and that sin little they will conclude that to be great which was too strong for them and that to be little which they can master As among Champions he is the strongest that gets the victory And then upon this account no sin is Venial that a man commits because that is it which hath prevail'd upon and master'd all his strengths 10. The instance is
as to agree with Scripture and reason and as may best glorifie God and that they require it I will not pretend to believe that those Doctors who first fram'd the Article did all of them mean as I mean I am not sure they did or that they did not but this I am sure that they fram'd the words with much caution and prudence and so as might abstain from grieving the contrary minds of differing men And I find that in the Harmony of confessions printed in Cambridge 1586 and allowed by publick Authority there is no other account given of the English confession in this Article but that every Person is born in sin and leadeth his life in sin and that no body is able truly to say his heart is clean That the most righteous person is but an unprofitable servant That the Law of God is perfect and requireth of us perfect and full obedience that we are able by no means to fulfill that Law in this worldly life that there is no mortal Creature which can be justified by his own deserts in God's sight Now this was taken out of the English Confession inserted in the General Apology written in the year 1562 in the very year the Articles were fram'd I therefore have reason to believe that the excellent men of our Church Bishops and Priests did with more Candor and Moderation opine in this Question and therefore when by the violence and noises of some parties they were forced to declare something they spake warily and so as might be expounded to that Doctrine which in the General Apology was their allowed sence However it is not unusual for Churches in matters of difficulty to frame their Articles so as to serve the ends of peace and yet not to endanger truth or to destroy liberty of improving truth or a further reformation And since there are so very many Questions and Opinions in this point either all the Dissenters must be allowed to reconcile the Article and their Opinion or must refuse her Communion which whosoever shall inforce is a great Schismatick and an Uncharitable Man This only is certain that to tye the Article and our Doctrine together is an excellent art of peace and a certain signification of obedience and yet is a security of truth and that just liberty of Understanding which because it is only God's subject is then sufficiently submitted to Men when we consent in the same form of words The Article is this Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam as the Pelagians do vainly talk 28. THE following of Adam that is the doing as he did is actual sin and in no sence can it be Original sin for that is as vain as if the Pelagians had said the second is the first and it is as impossible that what we do should be Adam's sin as it is unreasonable to say that his should be really and formally our sin Imitation supposes a Copy and those are two termes of a Relation and cannot be coincident as like is not the same But then if we speak of Original sin as we have our share in it yet cannot our imitation of Adam be it possibly it may be an effect of it or a Consequent But therefore Adam's sin did not introduce a necessity of sinning upon us for if it did Original sin would be a fatal curse by which is brought to pass not only that we do but that we cannot choose but follow him and then the following of Adam would be the greatest part of Original sin expresly against the Article 29. But it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every Man The fault vitium Naturae so it is in the Latine Copyes not a sin properly Non talia sunt vitia quae jam peccata dicenda sunt but a disease of the Soul as blindness or crookedness that is it is an imperfection or state of deficiency from the end whither God did design us we cannot with this nature alone go to Heaven for it having been debauch'd by Adam and disrobed of all its extraordinaries and graces whereby it was or might have been made fit for Heaven it is returned to its own state which is perfect in its kind that is in order to all natural purposes but imperfect in order to supernatural whither it was design'd The case is this The eldest Son of Craesus the Lydian was born dumb and by the fault of his Nature was unfit to govern the Kingdom therefore his Father passing him by appointed the Crown to his younger Brother But he in a Battail seeing his Father in danger to be slain in Zeal to save his Fathers life strain'd the ligatures of his tongue till that broke which bound him by returning to his speech he returned to his title We are born thus imperfect unfit to raign with God for ever and can never return to a title to our inheritance till we by the grace of God be redintegrate and made perfect like Adam that is freed from this state of imperfection by supernatural aides and by the grace of God be born again Corruption This word is exegetical of the other and though it ought not to signifie the diminution of the powers of the soul not only because the powers of the soul are not corruptible but because if they were yet Adams sin could not do it since it is impossible that an act proper to a faculty should spoil it of which it is rather perfective and an act of the will can no more spoil the will than an act of understanding can lessen the understanding Yet this word Corruption may mean a spoiling or disrobing our Nature of all its extraordinary investitures that is supernatural gifts and graces a Comparative Corruption so as Moses's face when the light was taken from it or a Diamond which is more glorious by a reflex ray of the Sun when the light was taken off falls into darkness and yet loses nothing of its Nature But Corruption relates to the body not to the soul and in this Article may very properly and aptly be taken in the same sence as it is used by S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. The body is sown in Corruption that is in all the effects of its mortality and this indeed is a part of Original sin or the effect of Adams sin it introduc'd Natural Corruption or the affections of mortality the solemnities of death for indeed this is the greatest parth of Original sin Fault and Corruption mean the Concupiscence and Mortality Of the Nature of every man This gives light to the other and makes it clear it cannot be in us properly a sin for sin is an affection of persons not of the whole Nature for an Universal cannot be the subject of circumstances and particular actions and personal proprieties as humane Nature cannot be said to be drunk or to commit adultery now because sin is an action or omission and it is made up of many particularities it cannot be
excellency of the Divine grace and S. Austin needed not to have been put to his shifts in this Question it is considerable that his first Exposition had done his business better For if these words of S. Paul be as indeed they are to be expounded of an unregenerate man one under the law but not under grace nothing could more have magnified Gods grace than that an unregenerate person could not by all the force of nature nor the aids of the law nor the spirit of fear nor temporal hopes be redeem'd from the slavery and tyranny of sin and that from this state there is no redemption but by the Spirit of God and the grace of the Lord Jesus which is expresly affirmed and proved by S. Paul if you admit this sence of the words And therefore Irenaeus who did so cites these words to the same effect viz. for the magnifying the grace of God Ipse Dominus erat qui salvabat eos quia per semetipsos non habebant salvari Et propter hoc Paulus infirmitatem hominis annuncians ait Scio enim quoniam non habitat in carne meâ bonum significans quoniam non à nobis sed à Deo est bonum salutis Et iterum Miser ego homo quis me liberabit de corpore mortis hujus Deinde infert liberatorem Gratia Jesu Christi Domini nostri S. Paul's complaint shews our own infirmity and that of our selves we cannot be saved but that our salvation is of God and the grace of our Redeemer Jesus Christ. But whatever S. Austins design might be in making the worse choice it matters not much only to the interpretation it self I have these considerations to oppose 19. I. Because the phrase is insolent and the exposition violent to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by concupiscere to do is more than to desire factum dictum concupitum are the several kinds and degrees of sinning assigned by S. Austin himself and therefore they cannot be confounded and one made to expound the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also used here by the Apostle which in Scripture signifies sometimes to sin habitually never less than actually and the other word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies perficere patrare to finish the act at least or to do a sin throughly and can in no sence be reasonably expounded by natural ineffective and unavoidable desires And it is observable that when S. Austin in prosecution of this device is to expound those words to will is present with me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to perform what is good I find not he makes the word to signifie to do it perfectly which is as much beyond as the other sence of the same word is short What I do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I approve not Therefore the man does not do his sin perfectly he does the thing imperfectly for he does it against his conscience and with an imperfect choice but he does the thing however So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie to do the good imperfectly the action it self only for such was this mans impotency that he could not obtain power to do even imperfectly the good he desir'd The evil he did though against his mind but the good he could not because it was against the law of sin which reigned in him But then the same word must not to serve ends be brought to signifie a perfect work and yet not to signifie so much as a perfect desire 20. II. The sin which S. Paul under another person complains of is such a sin as did first deceive him and then slew him but concupiscence does not kill till it proceeds further as S. James expresly affirms that concupiscence when it hath conceived brings forth sin and sin when it is finished brings forth death which is the just parallel to what S. Paul says in this very Chapter The passions of sins which were by the law did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death peccatum perpetratum when the desires are acted then sin is deadly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the passions or first motions of sin which come upon us nobis non volentibus nec scientibus whether we will or no these are not imputed to us unto death but are the matter of vertue when they are resisted and contradicted but when they are consented to and delighted in then it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sin in conception with death and will proceed to action unless it be hindred from without and therefore it is then the same sin by interpretation Adulterium cordis so our blessed Saviour called it in that instance the adultery of the heart but till it be an actual sin some way or other it does not bring forth death 21. III. It is an improper and ungrammatical manner of speaking to say Nolo concupiscere or Volo non concupiscere I will lust or I will not lust i. e. I will or I will not desire or will For this lust or first motions of desire are before an act of will the first act of which is when these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these motions and passions are consented to or rejected These motions are natural and involuntary and are no way in our power but when they are occasion'd by an act of the Will collaterally and indirectly or by applying the proper incentives to the faculty Vellem non concupiscere every good man must say I would fain be free from concupiscence but because he cannot it is not subject to his Will and he cannot say volo I will be free and therefore S. Paul's Volo and Nolo are not intended of Concupiscence or desires 22. IV. The good which S. Austin says the Apostle fain would but could not perfect or do it perfectly is Non concupiscere not to have concupiscence Volo non perficio but Concupiscere is but velle it is not so much and therefore cannot be more So that when he says to will is present with me he must mean to desire well is present with me but to do this I find not that is if S. Austins interpretation be true though I do desire well yet I do lust and do not desire well for still concupisco I lust and I lust not I have concupiscence and I have it not which is a contradiction 23. Many more things might be observed from the words of the Apostle to overthrow this exposition but the truth when it is proved will sufficiently reprove what is not true and therefore I shall apply my self to consider the proper intention and design of the Apostle in those so much mistaken periods SECT IV. 24. COncerning which these things are to be cleared upon which the whole issue will depend 1. That S. Paul speaks not in his own person as an Apostle or a Christian a man who is regenerate but in the person of a Jew one under the law one that is not regenerate 2. That
the gayeties of this sinful age For although Christs blood can expiate all sins and his Spirit can sanctifie all sinners and his Church can restore all that are capable yet if we consider that the particulars of every naughty mans case are infinitely uncertain that there are no minute-measures of repentance set down after Baptism that there are some states of sinners which God does reject that the arrival to this state is by parts and undetermin'd steps of progression that no man can tell when any sin begins to be unpardonable to such a person and that if we be careless of our selves and easie in our judgments and comply with the false measures of any age we may be in before we are aware and cannot come out so soon as we expect and lastly if we consider that the Primitive and Apostolical Churches who best knew how to estimate the mercies of the Gospel and the requisites of repentance and the malignity and dangers of sin did not promise pardon so easily so readily so quickly as we do we may think it fit to be more afraid and more contrite more watchful and more severe 31. I end this with the words of S. Hierome Cùm beatus Daniel praescius futurorum de sententiâ Dei dubitet rem temerariam faciunt qui audacter peccatoribus indulgentiam pollicentur Though Daniel could foretel future things yet he durst not pronounce concerning the King whether God would pardon him or no it is therefore a great rashness boldly to promise pardon to them that have sinned That is it is not to be done suddenly according to the caution which S. Paul gave to the Bishop of Ephesus Lay hands suddenly on no man that is absolve him not without great trial and just dispositions 32. For though this be not at all to be wrested to a suspicion that the sins in their kind are not pardonable yet thus far I shall make use of it That God who only hath the power he only can make the judgment whether the sinner be a worthy penitent or not For there being no express stipulation made concerning the degrees of repentance no taxa poenitentiaria penitential Tables and Canons consign'd by God it cannot be told by man when after great sins and a long iniquity the unhappy man shall be restor'd because it wholly depends upon the Divine acceptance 33. In smaller offences and the seldom returns of sin intervening in a good or a probable life the Curates of souls may make safe and prudent judgments But when the case is high and the sin is clamorous or scandalous or habitual they ought not to be too easie in speaking peace to such persons to whom God hath so fiercely threatned death eternal But to hold their hands may possibly increase the sorrow and contrition and fear of the penitent and returning man and by that means make him the surer of it But it is too great a confidence and presumption to dispense Gods pardon or the Kings upon easie terms and without their Commission 34. For since all the rule and measures of dispensing it is by analogies and proportions by some reason and much conjecture it were better by being restrain'd in the Ministeries of favour to produce fears and watchfulness carefulness and godly sorrow than by an open hand to make sinners bold and many confident and easie Those holy and wise men who were our Fathers in Christ did well weigh the dangers into which a sinning man had entred and did dreadfully fear the issues of the Divine anger and therefore although they openly taught that God hath set open the gates of mercy to all worthy penitents yet concerning repentance they had other thoughts than we have and that in the pardon of sinners there are many more things to be considered besides the possibility of having the sin pardoned SECT IV. Of the Sin against the Holy Ghost and in what sence it is or may be Vnpardonable 35. UPON what account the Primitive Church did refuse to admit certain Criminals to repentance I have already discoursed but because there are some places of Scripture which seem to have incouraged such severity by denying repentance also to some sinners it is necessary that they be considered also lest by being misunderstood some persons in the days of their sorrow be tempted to despair 36. The Novatians denying repentance to lapsed Christians pretended for their warrant those words of S. Paul It is impossible for those who were once inlightened and have tasted of the Heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come if they shall fall away to renew them again unto repentance seeing they crucifie to themselves the son of God afresh and put him to an open shame and parallel to this are those other words For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall consume the adversaries The sence of which words will be clear upon the explicating what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 37. If they shall fall away viz. from that state of excellent things in which they had received all the present endearments of the Gospel a full conviction pardon of sins the earnest of the Spirit the comfort of the promises an antepast of Heaven it self if these men shall fall away from all this it cannot be by infirmity by ignorance by surprise this is that which S. Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sin wilfully after they have received the knowledge of the truth Malicious sinners these are who sin against the Holy Spirit whose influences they throw away whose counsels they despise whose comforts they refuse whose doctrine they scorn and from thence fall not only into one single wasting sin but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they fall away into a contrary state into Heathenism or the heresie of the Gnosticks or to any state of despising and hating Christ expressed here by Crucifying the Son of God afresh and putting him to an open shame these are they here meant such who after they had worshipped Jesus and given up their names to him and had been blessed by him and felt it and acknowledged it and rejoyc'd in it these men afterwards without cause or excuse without error or infirmity chusingly willingly knowingly call'd Christ an Impostor and would have crucified him again if he had been alive that is they consented to his death by believing that he suffer'd justly This is the case here described and cannot be drawn to any thing else but its parallel that is a malicious renouncing charity or holy life as these men did the faith to both which they had made their solemn vows in Baptism but this can no way be
believed by the same simplicity it is taught when we do not call that a mystery which we are not able to prove and tempt our faith to swallow that whole which reason cannot chew One thing I am to observe more before I leave considering the words of the Apostle The Apostle here having instituted a comparison between Adam and Christ that as death came by one so life by the other as by one we are made sinners so by the other we are made righteous some from hence suppose they argue strongly to the overthrow of all that I have said thus Christ and Adam are compared therefore as by Christ we are made really righteous so by Adam we are made really Sinners our righteousness by Christ is more than imputed and therefore so is our unrighteousness by Adam to this besides what I have already spoken in my humble addresses to that wise and charitable Prelate the Lord Bishop of Rochester delivering the sence and objections of others in which I have declared my sence of the imputation of Christs righteousness and besides that although the Apostle offers a similitude yet he finds himself surprised and that one part of the similitude does far exceed the other and therefore nothing can follow hence but that if we receive evil from Adam we shall much more receive good from Christ besides this I say I have something very material to reply to the form of the argument which is a very trick and fallacy For the Apostle argues thus As by Adam we are made sinners so by Christ we are made righteous and that is very true and much more but to argue from hence as by Christ we are made really righteous so by Adam we are made really sinners is to invert the purpose of the Apostle who argues from the less to the greater and to make it conclude affirmatively from the greater to the less in matter of power is as if one should say If a child can carry a ten pound weight much more can a man and therefore whatsoever a man can do that also a child can do For though I can say If this thing be done in a green tree what shall be done in the dry yet I must not say therefore If this be done in the dry tree what shall be done in the green For the dry tree of the Cross could do much more than the green tree in the Garden of Eden It is a good argument to say If the Devil be so potent to do a shrewd turn much more powerful is God to do good but we cannot conclude from hence but God can by his own mere power and pleasure save a soul therefore the Devil can by his power ruine one In a similitude the first part may be and often is less than the second but never greater and therefore though the Apostle said As by Adam c. So by Christ c. Yet we cannot say as by Christ so by Adam We may well reason thus As by Nature there is a reward to evil doers so much more is there by God but we cannot by way of conversion reason thus As by God there is an eternal reward appointed to good actions so by Nature there is an eternal reward for evil ones And who would not deride this way of arguing As by our Fathers we receive temporal good things so much more do we by God but by God we also receive an immortal Soul therefore from our Fathers we receive an immortal Body For not the consequent of a hypothetical proposition but the antecedent is to be the assumption of the Syllogism This therefore is a fallacy which when those wise persons who are unwarily perswaded by it shall observe I doubt not but the whole way of arguing will appear unconcluding Object 6. But it is objected that my Doctrine is against the ninth Article in the Church of England and that I hear Madam does most of all stick with you Of this Madam I should not now have taken notice because I have already answered it in some additional papers which are already published but that I was so delighted to hear and to know that a person of your interest and piety of your zeal and prudence is so earnest for the Church of England that I could not pass it by without paying you that regard and just acknowledgment which so much excellency deserves But then Madam I am to say that I could not be delighted in your zeal for our excellent Church if I were not as zealous my self for it too I have oftentimes subscribed that Article and though if I had cause to dissent from it I would certainly do it in those just measures which my duty on one side and the interest of truth on the other would require of me yet because I have no reason to disagree I will not suffer my self to be supposed to be of a Differing judgment from my Dear Mother which is the best Church of the world Indeed Madam I do not understand the words of the Article as most men do but I understand them as they can be true and as they can very fairly signifie and as they agree with the word of God and right reason But I remember that I have heard from a very good hand and there are many alive this day that may remember to have heard it talk'd of publickly that when Mr. Thomas Rogers had in the year 1584. published an exposition of the Thirty Nine Articles many were not only then but long since very angry at him that he by his interpretation had limited the charitable latitude which was allowed in the subscription to them For the Articles being framed in a Church but newly reformed in which many complied with some unwillingness and were not willing to have their consent broken by too great a straining and even in the Convocation it self so many being of a differing judgment it was very great prudence and piety to secure the peace of the Church by as much charitable latitude as they could contrive and therefore the Articles in those things which were publickly disputed at that time even amongst the Doctors of the Reformation such were the Articles of Predestination and this of Original sin were described with incomparable wisdom and temper and therefore I have reason to take it ill if any man shall deny me liberty to use the benefit of the Churches wisdom For I am ready a thousand times to subscribe the Article if there can be just cause to do it so often but as I impose upon no man my sence of the Article but leave my reasons and him to struggle together for the best so neither will I be bound to any one man or any company of men but to my lawful Superiors speaking there where they can and ought to oblige Madam I take nothing ill from any man but that he should think I have a less zeal for our Church than himself and I will by Gods assistance be all
this may be well suppos'd without inferring their suffering the pains of Hell But this sentence of theirs I admit and explicate with some little difference of expression For so far I admit this pain of loss or rather a deficiency from going to Heaven to be the consequence of Adam's sin that by it we being left in meris Naturalibus could never by these strengths alone have gone to Heaven Now whereas your Lordship in behalf of those whom you suppose may be captious is pleas'd to argue That as loss of sight or eyes infers a state of darkness or blindness so the loss of Heaven infers Hell and if Infants go not to Heaven in that state whither can they go but to Hell and that 's Damnation in the greatest sence I grant it that if in the event of things they do not go to Heaven as things are now ordered it is but too likely that they go to Hell but I add that as all darkness does not infer horror and distraction of mind or fearful apparitions and phantasms so neither does all Hell or states in Hell infer all those torments which the School-men signifie by a poenaseâ—sus for I speak now in pursuance of their way So that there is no necessity of a third place but it concludes only that in the state of separation from Gods presence there is a great variety of degrees and kinds of evil and every one is not the extreme and yet by the way let me observe that Gregory Nazianzen and Nicetas taught that there is a third place for Infants and Heathens and Irenaeus affirm'd that the evils of Hell were not eternal to all but to the Devils only and the greater criminals But neither they nor we nor any man else can tell whether Hell be a place or no. It is a state of evil but whether all the damned be in one or in twenty places we cannot tell But I have no need to make use of any of this For when I affirm that Infants being by Adam reduc'd and left to their mere natural state fall short of Heaven I do not say they cannot go to Heaven at all but they cannot go thither by their natural powers they cannot without a new grace and favour go to Heaven But then it cannot presently be inferred that therefore they go to Hell but this ought to be inferr'd which indeed was the real consequent of it therefore it is necessary that Gods Grace should supply this defect if God intends Heaven to them at all and because Nature cannot God sent a Saviour by whom it was effected But if it be asked what if this grace had not come and that it be said that without Gods grace they must have gone to Hell because without it they could not go to Heaven I answer That we know how it is now that God in his goodness hath made provisions for them but if he had not made such provisions what would have been we know not any more than we know what would have followed if Adam had not sinned where he should have liv'd and how long and in what circumstances the posterity should have been provided for in all their possible contingencies But yet this I know that it follows not that if without this Grace we could not have gone to Heaven that therefore we must have gone to Hell For although the first was ordinarily impossible yet the second was absolutely unjust and against Gods goodness and therefore more impossible But because the first could not be done by nature God was pleased to promise and to give his grace that he might bring us to that state whither he had designâ—d us that is to a supernatural felicity If Adam had not fallen yet Heaven had not been a natural consequent of his obedience but a Gracious it had been a gift still and of Adam though he had persisted in innocence it is true to say That without Gods Grace that is by the mere force of Nature he could never have arriv'd to a Supernatural state that is to the joys of Heaven and yet it does not follow that if he had remain'd in Innocence he must have gone to Hell Just so it is in Infants Hell was not made for man but for Devils and therefore it must be something besides mere Nature that can bear any man thither mere Nature goes neither to Heaven nor Hell So that when I say Infants naturally cannot go to Heaven and that this is a punishment of Adam's sin he being for it punished with a loss of his gracious condition and devolv'd to the state of Nature and we by him left so my meaning is that this Damnation which is of our Nature is but negative that is as a consequent of our Patrialous sin our Nature is left imperfect and deficient in order to a supernatural end which the School-men call a poena damni but improperly they indeed think it may be a real event and final condition of persons as well as things but I affirm it was an evil effect of Adam's sin but in the event of things it became to the persons the way to a new grace and hath no other event as to Heaven and Hell directly and immediately In the same sence and to the same purpose I understand the word Damnation in the Ninth Article But the word Damnation may very well truly and sufficiently signifie all the purposes of the Article if it be taken only for the effect of that sentence which was inflicted upon Adam and descended on his posterity that is for condemnation to Death and the evils of mortality So the word is used by S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.29 He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word but that it did particularly signifie temporal death and evils appears by the instances of probation in the next words For for this cause some are weak amongst you some are sick and some are fallen asleep This also in the Article Original Sin deserves damnation that is it justly brought in the angry sentence of God upon Man it brought him to death and deserv'd it it brought it upon us and deserv'd it too I do not say that we by that sin deserv'd that death neither can death be properly a punishment of us till we superadd some evil of our own yet Adam's sin deserv'd it so that it was justly left to fall upon us we as a consequent and punishment of his sin being reduc'd to our natural portion In odiosis quod minimum est sequimur The lesser sence of the word is certainly agreeable to truth and reason and it were good we us'd the word in that sence which may best warrant her doctrine especially for that use of the word having the precedent of Scripture I am confirm'd in this interpretation by the second Section of the Article viz. of the remanency of Concupiscence or Original Sin in the Regenerate All the sinfulness of
which interpretation I follow S. Paul not the Pelagians they who are on the other side of the question follow neither And unless men take in their opinion before they read and resolve not to understand S. Paul in this Epistle I wonder why they should fancy that all that he says sounds that way which they commonly dream of But as men fancy so the Bells will ring But I know your Lordships grave and wiser judgment sees not only this that I have now opened but much beyond it and that you will be a zealous advocate for the truth of God and for the honour of his justice wisdom and mercy That which follows makes me believe your Lordship resolv'd to try me by speaking your own sence in the line and your temptation in the interline For when your Lordship had said that My arguments for the vindication of Gods goodness and justice are sound and holy your hand run it over again and added as abstracted from the case of Original Sin But why should this be abstracted from all the whole Oeconomy of God from all his other dispensations Is it in all cases of the world unjust for God to impute our fathers sins to us unto eternal condemnation and is it otherwise in this only Certainly a man would think this were the more favourable case as being a single act done but once repented of after it was done not consented to by the parties interested not stipulated by God that it should be so and being against all laws and all the reason of the world therefore it were but reason that if any where here much rather Gods justice and goodness should be relied upon as the measure of the event * And if in other cases laws be never given to Ideots and Infants and persons uncapable why should they be given here But if they were not capable of a Law then neither could they be of Sin for where there is no law there is no transgression And is it unjust to condemn one man to Hell for all the sin of a thousand of his Ancestors actually done by them And shall it be accounted just to damn all the world for one sin of one man But if it be said that it is unjust to damn the innocent for the sin of another but the world is not innocent but really guilty in Adam Besides that this is a begging of the question it is also against common sence to say that a man is not innocent of that which was done before he had a being for if that be not sufficient then it is impossible for a man to be innocent And if this way of answer be admitted any man may be damned for the sin of any Father because it may be said here as well as there that although the innocent must not perish for anothers fault yet the Son is not innocent as being in his Fathers loyns when the fault was committed and the law calls him and makes him guilty And if it were so indeed this were so far from being an excuse to say that the Law makes him guilty that this were absolute tyranny and the thing that were to be complain'd of I hope by this time your Lordship perceives that I have no reason to fear that I prevaricate S. Paul's rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I only endeavour to understand S. Paul's words and I read them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in proportion to and so as they may not intrench upon the reputation of Gods goodness and justice that 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be wise unto sobriety But they that do so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to resolve it to be so whether God be honour'd in it or dishonour'd and to answer all arguments whether they can or cannot be answered and to efform all their Theology to the air of that one great proposition and to find out ways for God to proceed in which he hath never told of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ways that are crooked and not to be insisted in ways that are not right if these men do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then I hope I shall have less need to fear that I do who do none of these things And in proportion to my security here I am confident that I am unconcern'd in the consequent threatning If any man shall Evangelize 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any other doctrine than what ye have received something for Gospel which is not Gospel something that ye have not received let him be accursed My Lord if what I teach were not that which we have received that God is just and righteous and true that the soul that sins the same shall die that we shall have no cause to say The Fathers have eaten sowre Grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge that God is a gracious Father pardoning iniquity and therefore not exacting it where it is not that Infants are from their Mothers wombs beloved of God their Father that of such is the Kingdom of God that he pities those souls who cannot discern the right hand from the left as he declar'd in the case of the Ninevites that to Infants there are special Angels appointed who always behold the face of God that Christ took them in his arms and blessed them and therefore they are not hated by God and accursed heirs of Hell and coheirs with Satan that the Messias was promisâ—d before any children were born as certainly as that Adam sinn'd before they were born that if sin abounds grace does superabound and therefore children are with greater effect involv'd in the grace than they could be in the sin and the sin must be gone before it could do them mischief if this were not the doctrine of both Testaments and if the contrary were then the threatning of S. Paul might well be held up against me but else my Lord to shew such a Scorpion to him that speaks the truth of God in sincerity and humility though it cannot make me to betray the truth and the honour of God yet the very fear and affrightment which must needs seize upon every good man that does but behold it or hear the words of that angry voice shall and hath made me to pray not only that my self be preserved in truth but that it would please God to bring into the way of truth all such as have erred and are deceived My Lord I humbly thank your Lordship for your grave and pious Counsel and kiss the hand that reaches forth so paternal a rod. I see you are tender both of truth and me and though I have not made this tedious reply to cause trouble to your Lordship or to steal from you any part of your precious time yet because I see your Lordship was perswaded induere personam to give some little countenance to a popular error out of jealousie against a less usual truth I thought it my duty to represent to your Lordship such things by which as I can so I ought to
to be refused as being the increaser of sin rather than of children and a semination in the flesh and contrary to the spirit and such a thing which being mingled with sin produces univocal issues the mother and the daughter are so like that they are the worse again For if a proper inherent sin be effected by chaste marriages then they are in this particular equal to adulterous embraces and rather to be pardoned than allowed and if all Concupiscence be vicious then no marriage can be pure These things it may be have not been so much considered but your Lordship I know remembers strange sayings in S. Hierome in Athenagoras and in S. Austin which possibly have been countenanced and maintained at the charge of this opinion But the other parent of this is the zeal against the Pelagian Heresie which did serve it self by saying too little in this Article and therefore was thought fit to be confuâ—ed by saying too much and that I conjecture right in this affair I appeal to the words which I cited out of S. Austin in the matter of Concupiscence concerning which he speaks the same thing that I do when he is disingaged as in his books De civitate Dei but in his Tractate de peccatorum meritis remissione which was written in his heat against the Pelagians he speaks quite contrary And who-ever shall with observation read his one book of Original Sin against Pelagius his two books de Nuptiis Concupiscentia to Valerius his three books to Marcellinus de peccatorum meritis remissione his four books to Boniface contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum his six books to Claudius against Julianus and shall think himself bound to believe all that this excellent man wrote will not only find it impossible he should but will have reason to say that zeal against an error is not always the best instrument to find out truth The same complaint hath been made of others and S. Jerome hath suffer'd deeply in the infirmity I shall not therefore trouble your Lordship with giving particular answers to the words of S. Jerome and S. Ambrose because besides what I have already said I do not think that their words are an argument fit to conclude against so much evidence nor against a much less than that which I have every where brought in this Article though indeed their words are capable of a fair interpretation and besides the words quoted out of S. Ambrose are none of his and for Aquinas Lombard and Bonaventure your Lordship might as well press me with the opinion of Mr. Calvin Knox and Buchannan with the Synod of Dort or the Scots Presbyteries I know they are against me and therefore I reprove them for it but it is no disparagement to the truth that other men are in error And yet of all the School-men Bonaventure should least have been urg'd against me for the proverbs sake for Adam non peccavit in Bonaventura Alexander of Hales would often say that Adam never sinn'd in Bonaventure But it may be he was not in earnest no more am I. The last thing your Lordship gives to me in Charge in the behalf of the objectors is that I would take into consideration the Covenant made between Almighty God and Adam as relating to his posterity To this I answer That I know of no such thing God made a Covenant with Adam indeed and us'd the right of his dominion over his posterity and yet did nothing but what was just but I find in Scripture no mention made of any such Covenant as is dreamt of about the matter of Original Sin only the Covenant of works God did make with all men till Christ came but he did never exact it after Adam but for a Covenant that God should make with Adam that if he stood all his posterity should be I know not what and if he fell they should be in a damnable condition of this I say there is nec vola nec vestigium in holy Scripture that ever I could meet with if there had been any such Covenant it had been but equity that to all the persons interessed it should have been communicated and caution given to all who were to suffer and abilities given to them to prevent the evil for else it is not a Covenant with them but a decree concerning them and it is impossible that there should be a Covenant made between two when one of the parties knows nothing of it I will enter no further into this enquiry but only observe that though there was no such Covenant yet the event that hapned might without any such Covenant have justly entred in at many doors It is one thing to say that God by Adam's sin was moved to a severer entercourse with his posterity for that is certainly true and it is another thing to say that Adam's sin of it self did deserve all the evil that came actually upon his children Death is the wages of sin one death for one sin but not 10000 millions for one sin but therefore the Apostle affirms it to have descended on all in as much as all men have sinn'd But if from a sinning Parent a good child descends the childs innocence will more prevail with God for kindness than the fathers sin shall prevail for trouble Non omnia parentum peccata dii in liberos convertunt sed siquis de malo nascitur bonus tanquam benè affectus corpore natus de morboso is generis poenâ liberatur tanquam ex improbitatis domo in aliam familiam datus qui verò morbo in similitudinem generis refertur atque redigitur vitiosi ei nimirum convenit tanquam haeredi debitas poenas vitii persolvere said Plutarch De iis qui serò à Numine puniuntur ex interpr Cluserii God does not always make the fathers sins descend upon the children But if a good child is born of a bad father like a healthful body from an ill-affected one he is freed from the punishment of his stock and passes from the house of wickedness into another family But he who inherits the disease he also must be heir of the punishment Quorum natura amplexa est cognatam malitiam hos Justitia similitudinem pravitatis persequens supplicio affecit if they pursue their kindreds wickedness they shall be pursued by a cognation of judgment Other ways there are by which it may come to pass that the sins of others may descend upon us He that is Author or the perswader the minister or the helper the approver or the follower may derive the sins of others to himself but then it is not their sins only but our own too and it is like a dead Taper put to a burning light and held there this derives light and flames from the other and yet then hath it of its own but they dwell together and make one body These are the ways by which punishment can enter but there are evils which are no
are Nestorian Where then shall we fix our confidence or joyn Communion To pitch upon any one of these is to throw the Dice if Salvation be to be had onely in one of them and that every errour that by chance hath made a Sect and is distinguished by a name be damnable If this consideration does not deceive me we have no other help in the midst of these distractions and dis-unions but all of us to be united in that common term which as it does constitute the Church in its being such so it is the Medium of the Communion of Saints and that is the Creed of the Apostles and in all other things an honest endeavour to find out what Truths we can and a charitable and and mutual permission to others that disagree from us and our Opinions I am sure this may satisfie us for it will secure us but I know not any thing else that will and no man can be reasonably prswaded or satisfied in any else unless he throws himself upon chance or absolute predestination or his own confidence in every one of which it is two to one at least but he may miscarry Thus far I thought I had reason on my side and I suppose I have made it good upon its proper grounds in the pages following But then if the result be that men must be permitted in their Opinions and that Christians must not persecute Christians I have also as much reason to reprove all those oblique Arts which are not direct Persecutions of mens persons but they are indirect proceedings ungentle and unchristian servants of faction and interest provocations to zeal and animosities and destructive of learning and ingenuity And these are suppressing all the monuments of their Adversaries forcing them to recant and burning their Books For it is a strange industry and an importune diligence that was used by our fore-fathers of all those Heresies which gave them battel and imployment we have absolutely no Record or Monument but what themselves who are adversaries have transmitted to us and we know that Adversaries especially such who observed all opportunities to discredit both the persons and Doctrines of the Enemy are not alwaies the best records or witnesses of such transactions We see it now in this very Age in the present Distemperatures that parties are no good Registers of the actions of the adverse side And if we cannot be confident of the truth of a story now now I say that it is possible for any man and likely that the interessed adversary will discover the imposture it is far more unlikely that after-Ages should know any other truth but such as serves the ends of the representers I am sure such things were never taught us by Christ and his Apostles and if we were sure that our selves spoke truth or that truth were able to justifie herself it were better if to preserve a Doctrine we did not destroy a Commandment and out of zeal pretending to Christian Religion lose the glories and rewards of ingenuity and Christian simplicity Of the same consideration is mending of Authors not to their own mind but to ours that is to mend them so as to spoil them forbidding the publication of Books in which there is nothing impious or against the publick interest leaving out clauses in Translations disgracing mens persons charging disavowed Doctrines upon men and the persons of the men with the consequents of their Doctrine which they deny either to be true or to be consequent false reporting of Disputations and Conferences burning Books by the hand of the hang-man and all such Arts which shew that we either distrust God for the maintenance of his truth or that we distrust the cause or distrust our selves and our abilities I will say no more of these but only concerning the last I shall transcribe a passage out of Tacitus in the life of Julius Agricola who gives this account of it Veniam non petissem nisi incursaturus tam saeva infesta virtutibus tempora Legimus cùm Aruleno Rustico Paetus Thrasea Herennio Senecioni Priscus Helvidius laudati essent capitale fuisse neque in ipsos modo authores sed in libros quoque eorum saevitum delegato Triumviris ministerio ut monumenta clarissimorum ingeniorum in comitio ac foro urerentur scil illo igne vocem populi Rom. libertatem Senatus conscientiam generis humani aboleri arbitrabantur expulsis insuper sapientiae professoribus atque omni bona arte in exilium acta ne quid usquam honestum occurreret It is but an illiterate policy to think that such indirect and uningenuous proceedings can among wise and free men disgrace the Authors and disrepute their Discourses And I have seen that the price hath been trebled upon a forbidden or a condemn'd Book and some men in policy have got a prohibition that their impression might be the more certainly vendible and the Author himself thought considerable The best way is to leave tricks and devices and to fall upon that way which the best Ages of the Church did use With the strength of Argument and Allegations of Scripture and modesty of deportment and meekness and charity to the persons of men they converted misbelievers stopped the mouths of Adversaries asserted Truth and discountenanced errour and those other stratagems and Arts of support and maintenance to Doctrines were the issues of Heretical brains The old Catholicks had nothing to secure themselves but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of truth and plain dealing Fidem minutis dissecant ambagibus Ut quisque lingua est nequior Solvunt ligantque quaestionum vincula Per syllogismos plectiles Vae captiosis Sycophantarum strophis Vae versipelli astutiae Nodos tenaces recta rumpit regula Infesta discertantibus Idcirco mundi stulta deligit Deus Ut concidant Sophistica And to my understanding it is a plain art and design of the Devil to make us so in love with our own Opinions as to call them Faith and Religion that we may be proud in our understanding and besides that by our zeal in our Opinions we grow cool in our piety and practical duties he also by this earnest contention does directly destroy good life by engagement of Zealots to do any thing rather then be overcome and lose their beloved Propositions But I would fain know why is not any vitious habit as bad or worse then a false Opinion Why are we so zealous against those we call Hereticks and yet great friends with drunkards fornicatours and swearers and intemperate and idle persons Is it because we are commanded by the Apostle to reject a Heretick after two admonitions and not bid such a one God speed It is good reason why we should be zealous against such persons provided we mistake them not For those of whom these Apostles speak are such as deny Christ to be come in the flesh such as deny an Article of Creed and in such odious things it is not safe
their Adversaries that speak so much reason and Scripture against them I have instanced in the Roman Religion but I wish it may be considered also how far mens doctrines in other Sects serve mens temporal ends so far that it would not be unreasonable or unnecessary to attempt to cure some of their distemperatures or misperswasions by the salutary precepts of sanctitie and holy life Sure enough if it did not more concern their reputation and their lasting interest to be counted true believers rather then good livers they would rather endeavour to live well then to be accounted of a right Opinion in things beside the Creed For my own particular I cannot but expect that God in his Justice should enlarge the bounds of the Turkish Empire or some other way punish Christians by reason of their pertinacious disputing about things unnecessary undeterminable and unprofitable and for their hating and persecuting their brethen which should be as dear to them as their own lives for not consenting to one another's follies and senseless vanities How many volumes have been writ about Angels about immaculate Conception about Original sin when that all that is solid Reason or clear Revelation in all these three Articles may be reasonably enough comprised in fourty lines And in these trifles and impertinencies men are curiously busie while they neglect those glorious precepts of Christianity and holy life which are the glories of our Religion and would enable us to a happy eternity My Lord Thus far my thoughts have carried me and then I thought I had reason to go further and to examine the proper grounds upon which these perswasions might rely and stand firm in case any body should contest against them For possibly men may be angry at me and my design for I do all them great displeasure who think no end is then well served when their interest is disserved and but that I have writ so untowardly and heavily that I am not worth a confutation possibly some or other might be writing against me But then I must tell them I am prepared of an answer beforehand For I think I have spoken reason in my Book and examined it with all the severity I have and if after all this I be deceived this confirms me in my first opinion and becomes a new Argument to me that I have spoken reason for it furnishes me with a new instance that it is necessary there should be a mutual compliance and Toleration because even then when a man thinks he hath most reason to be confident he may easily be deceived For I am sure I have no other design but the prosecution and advantage of Truth and I may truely use the words of Gregory Nazianzen Non studemus paci in detrimentum verae doctrinae ut facilitatis mansuetudinis famam colligamus but I have writ this because I thought it was necessary and seasonable and charitable and agreeable to the great precepts and design of Christianity consonant to the practice of the Apostles and of the best Ages of the Church most agreeable to Scripture and Reason to Revelation and the nature of the thing and it is such a Doctrine that if there be variety in humane affairs if the event of things be not setled in a durable consistence but is changeable every one of us all may have need of it I shall onely therefore desire that they who will reade it may come to the reading it with as much simplicity of purposes and unmixed desires of truth as I did to the writing it and that no man trouble himself with me or my discourse that thinks beforehand that his Opinion cannot be reasonably altered If he thinks me to be mistaken before he tries let him also think that he may be mistaken too and that he who judges before he hears is mistaken though he gives a right sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Was good counsel But at a venture I shall leave this sentence of Solomon to his consideration A wise man feareth and departeth from evil but a fool rageth and is confident 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a trick of boys and bold young fellows says Aristotle but they who either know themselves or things or persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peradventure yea peradventure no is very often the wisest determination of a Question For there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle notes foolish and unlearned Questions and it were better to stop the current of such fopperies by silence then by disputing them convey them to posterity And many things there are of more profit which yet are of no more certainty and therefore boldness of assertion except it be in matters of Faith and clearest Revelation is an Argument of the vanity of the man never of the truth of the Proposition for to such matters the saying of Xenophanes in Varro is pertinent and applicable Hominis est haec opinari Dei scire God only knows them and we conjecture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And although I be as desirous to know what I should and what I should not as any of my brethren the sons of Adam yet I find that the more I search the farther I am from being satisfied and make but few discoveries save of my own ignorance and therefore I am desirous to follow the example of a very wise personage Julius Agricola of whom Tacitus gave this testimony RetinuÃtque quod est difficillimum ex scientia modum or that I may take my precedent from within the pale of the Church it was the saying of S. Austin Mallem quidem eorum quae à me quaesivisti habere scientiam quam ignorantiam sed quia id nondum potui magis eligo cautam ignorantiam confiteri quam falsam scientiam profiteri And these words do very much express my sense But if there be any man so confident as Luther sometime was who said that he could expound all Scripture or so vain as Eckius who in his Chrysopassus ventur'd upon the highest and most mysterious Question of Predestination ut in ea juveniles possit calores exercere such persons as these or any that is furious in his opinion will scorn me and my Discourse but I shall not be much mov'd at it onely I shall wish that I had as much knowledge as they think me to want and they as much as they believe themselves to have In the mean time modesty were better for us both and indeed for all men For when men indeed are knowing amongst other things they are able to separate certainties from uncertainties If they be not knowing it is pitty that their ignorance should be triumphant or discompose the publick peace or private confidence And now my Lord that I have inscrib'd this Book to your Lordship although it be a design of doing honour to myself that I have mark'd it with so honour'd and beloved a Name might possibly need as much excuse as it does pardon but that your
a lie But a good man that believes what according to his light and upon the use of his moral industry he thinks true whether he hits upon the right or no because he hath a mind desirous of truth and prepared to believe every truth is therefore acceptable to God because nothing hindred him from it but what he could not help his misery and his weakness which being imperfections meerly natural which God never punishes he stands fair for a blessing of his morality which God always accepts So that now if Stephen had followed the example of God Almighty or retained but the same peaceable spirit which his Brother of Carthage did he might with more advantage to truth and reputation both of wisdom and piety have done his duty in attesting what he believed to be true for we are as much bound to be zealous pursuers of peace as earnest contenders for the Faith I am sure more earnest we ought to be for the peace of the Church than for an Article which is not of the Faith as this Question of rebaptization was not for S. Cyprian died in belief against it and yet was a Catholick and a Martyr for the Christian Faith 23. The summe is this S. Cyprian did right in a wrong cause as it hath been since judged and Stephen did ill in a good cause as far then as piety and charity is to be perferred before a true opinion so far is S. Cyprian's practice a better precedent for us and an example of primitive sanctity than the zeal and indiscretion of Stephen S. Cyprian had not learned to forbid to any one a liberty of prophesying or interpretation if he transgressed not the foundation of Faith and the Creed of the Apostles 24. Well thus it was and thus it ought to be in the first Ages the Faith of Christendom rested still upon the same foundation and the judgements of heresies were accordingly or were amiss but the first great violation of this truth was when General Councils came in and the Symbols were enlarged and new Articles were made as much of necessity to be believed as the Creed of the Apostles and damnation threatned to them that did dissent and at last the Creeds multiplied in number and in Articles and the liberty of prophesying began to be something restrained 25. And this was of so much the more force and efficacy because it began upon great reason and in the first instance with success good enough For I am much pleased with the enlarging of the Creed which the Council of Nice made because they enlarged it to my sence but I am non sure that others are satisfied with it While we look upon the Articles they did determine we see all things well enough but there are some wise personages consider it in all circumstances and think the Church had been more happy if she had not been in some sence constrained to alter the simplicity of her faith and make it more curious and articulate so much that he had need be a subtle man to understand the very words of the new determinations 26. For the first Alexander Bishop of Alexandria in the presence of his Clergy entreats somewhat more curiously of the secret of the mysterious Trinity and Unity so curiously that Arius who was a Sophister too subtle as it afterward appeared misunderstood him and thought he intended to bring in the heresy of Sabellius For while he taught the Unity of the Tritity either he did it so inartificially or so intricately that Arius thought he did not distinguish the persons when the Bishop intended only the unity of nature Against this Arius furiously drives and to confute Sabellius and in him as he thought the Bishop distinguishes the natures too and so to secure the Article of the Trinity destroyes the Unity It was the first time the Question was disputed in the world and in such mysterious niceties possibly every wise man may understand something but few can understand all and therefore suspect what they understand not and are furiously zealous for that part of it which they do perceive Well it happened in these as always in such cases in things men understand not they are most impetuous and because suspicion is a thing infinite in degrees for it hath nothing to determine it a suspicious person is ever most violent for his fears are worse than the thing feared because the thing is limited but his fears are not so that upon this grew contentious on both sides and tumultuous rayling and reviling each other and then the Laity were drawn into parts and the Meletians abetted the wrong part and the right part fearing to be overborn did any thing that was next at hand to secure it self Now then they that lived in that Age that understood the men that saw how quiet the Church was before this stirre how miserably rent now what little benefit from the Question what schism about it gave other censures of the business than we since have done who only look upon the Article determined with truth and approbation of the Church generally since that time But the Epistle of Constantine to Alexander and Arius tells the truth and chides them both for commencing the Question Alexander for broaching it Arius for taking it up and although this be true that it had been better for the Church it never had begun yet being begun what is to be done in it of this also in that admirable Epistle we have the Emperours judgment I suppose not without the advice and privity of Hosius Bishop of Corduba whom the Emperour loved and trusted much and imployed in the delivery of the Letters For first he calls it a certain vain piece of a Question ill begun and more unadvisedly published a Question which no Law or Ecclesiastical Canon defineth a fruitless contention the product of idle brains a matter so nice so obscure so intricate that it was neither to be explicated by the Clergy nor understood by the people a dispute of words a doctrine inexplicable but most dangerous when taught lest it introduce discord or blasphemy and therefore the Objector was rash and the Answerer unadvised for it concerned not the substance of Faith or the worship of God nor any chief commandment of Scripture and therefore why should it be the matter of discord For though the matter be grave yet because neither necessary nor explicable the contention is trifling and toyish And therefore as the Philosophers of the same Sect though differing in explication of an opinion yet more love for the unity of their Profession than disagree for the difference of opinion So should Christians believing in the same God retaining the same Faith having the same hopes opposed by the same enemies not fall at variance upon such disputes considering our understandings are not all alike and therefore neither can our opinions in such mysterious Articles So that the matter being of no great importance but vain and a
toy in respect of the excellent blessings of peace and charity it were good that Alexander and Arius should leave contending keep their opinions to themselves ask each other forgiveness and give mutual toleration This is the substance of Constantine's letter and it contains in it much reason if he did not undervalue the Question but it seems it was not then thought a question of Faith but of nicety of dispute they both did believe one God and the holy Trinity Now then that he afterward called the Nicene Council it was upon occasion of the vileness of the men of the Arian part their eternal discord and pertinacious wrangling and to bring peace into the Church that was the necessity and in order to it was the determination of the Article But for the Article it self the Letter declares what opinion he had of that and this Letter was by Socrates called a wonderful exhortation full of grave and sober counsels and such as Hosius himself who was the messenger pressed with all earnestness with all the skill and Authority he had 27. I know the opinion the world had of the Article afterward is quite differing from this censure given of it before and therefore they have put it into the Creed I suppose to bring the world to unity and to prevent Sedition in this Question and the accidental blasphemies which were occasioned by their curious talkings of such secret mysteries and by their illiterate resolutions But although the Article was determined with an excellent spirit and we all with much reason profess to believe it yet it is another consideration whether or no it might not have been better determined if with more simplicity and another yet whether or no since many of the Bishops who did believe this thing yet did not like the nicety and curiosity of expressing it it had not been more agreeable to the practice of the Apostles to have made a determination of the Article by way of Exposition of the Apostles Creed and to have lest this in a rescript for record to all posterity and not to have enlarged the Creed with it for since it was an Explication of an Article of the Creed of the Apostles as Sermons are of places of Scripture it was thought by some that Scripture might with good profit and great truth be expounded and yet the Expositions not put into the Canon or go for Scripture but that left still in the naked Original simplicity and so much the rather since that Explication was further from the foundation and though most certainly true yet not penn'd by so infallible a spirit as was that of the Apostles and therefore not with so much evidence as certainty And if they had pleased they might have made use of an admirable precedent to this and many other great and good purposes no less than of the blessed Apostles whose Symbol they might have imitated with as much simplicity as they did the Expressions of Scripture when they first composed it For it is most considerable that although in reason every clause in the Creed should be clear and so inopportune and unapt to variety of interpretation that there might be no place left for several sences or variety of Expositions yet when they thought fit to insert some mysteries into the Creed which in Scripture were expressed in so mysterious words that the last and most explicite sence would still be latent yet they who if ever any did understood all the sences and secrets of it thought it not fit to use any words but the words of Scripture particularly in the Articles of Christs descending into Hell and sitting at the right hand of God to shew us that those Creeds are best which keep the very words of Scripture and that Faith is best which hath greatest simplicity and that it is better in all cases humbly to submit than curiously to enquire and pry into the mystery under the cloud and to hazard our Faith by improving our knowledge If the Nicene Fathers had done so too possibly the Church would never have repented it 28. And indeed the experience the Church had afterwards shewed that the Bishops and Priests were not satisfied in all circumstances nor the schism appeased nor the persons agreed nor the Canons accepted nor the Article understood nor any thing right but when they were overborn with Authority which Authority when the scales turned did the same service and promotion to the contrary 29. But it is considerable that it was not the Article or the thing it self that troubled the disagreeing persons but the manner of representing it For the five Dissenters Eusebius of Nicomedia Theognis Maris Theonas and Secundus believed Christ to be very God of very God but the clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they derided as being perswaded by their Logick that he was neither of the substance of the Father by division as a piece of a lump nor derivation as children from their Parents nor by production as buds from trees and no body could tell them any other way at that time and that made the fire to burn still And that was it I said if the Article had been with more simplicity and less nicety determined charity would have gained more and faith would have lost nothing And we shall find the wisest of them all for so Eusebius Pamphilus was esteemed published a Creed or Confession in the Synod and though he and all the rest believed that great mystery of Godliness God manifested in the flesh yet he was not fully satisfied nor so soon of the clause of one substance till he had done a little violence to his own understanding for even when he had subscribed to the clause of one substance he does it with a protestation that heretofore he never had been acquainted nor accustomed himself to such speeches And the sence of the word was either so ambiguous or their meaning so uncertain that Andreus Fricius does with some probability dispute that the Nicene Fathers by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did mean Patris similitudinem non essentiae unitatem Sylva 4. c. 1. And it was so well understood by personages disinterested that when Arius and Euzoius had confessed Christ to be Deus verbum without inserting the clause of one substance the Emperour by his Letter approved of his Faith and restored him to his Countrey and Office and the Communion of the Church And a long time after although the Article was believed with nicety enough yet when they added more words still to the mystery and brought in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying there were three hypostases in the holy Trinity it was so long before it could be understood that it was believed therefore because they would not oppose their Superiours or disturb the peace of the Church in things which they thought could not be understood in so much that Saint Hierom writ to Damascus in these words Discerne si placet obsecro non timebo
tres hypostases dicere si jubetis and again Obtestor beatitudinem tuam per Crucifixum mundi salutem per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trinitatem ut mihi Epistolis tuis sive tacendarum sive dicendarum hypostaseôn detur authoritas 30. But without all Question the Fathers determined the Question with much truth though I cannot say the Arguments upon which they built their Decrees were so good as the conclusion it self was certain But that which in this case is considerable is whether or no they did well in putting a curse to the foot of their Decree and the Decree it self into the Symbol as if it had been of the same necessity For the curse Eusebius Pamphilus could hardly find in his heart to subscribe at last he did but with this clause that he subscribed it because the former curse did only forbid men to acquaint themselves with forraign speeches and unwritten languages whereby confusion and discord is brought into the Church So that it was not so much a magisterial high assertion of the Article as an endeavour to secure the peace of the Church And to the same purpose for ought I know the Fathers composed a form of Confession not as a prescript Rule of Faith to build the hopes of our salvation on but as a tessera of that Communion which by publick Authority was therefore established upon those Articles because the Articles were true though not of prime necessity and because that unity of confession was judged as things then stood the best preserver of the unity of minds 31. But I shall observe this that although the Nicene Fathers in that case at that time and in that conjuncture of circumstances did well and yet their approbation is made by after Ages ex post facto yet if this precedent had been followed by all Councils and certainly they had equal power if they had thought it equally reasonable and that they had put all their Decrees into the Creed as some have done since to what a volume had the Creed by this time swelled and all the house had run into foundation nothing left for super-structures But that they did not it appears 1. That since they thought all their Decrees true yet they did not think them all necessary at least not in that degree and that they published such Decrees they did it Declarando not imperando as Doctors in their Chairs not masters of other mens faith and consciences 2. And yet there is some more modesty or wariness or necessity what shall I call it than this comes too for why are not all controversies determined but even when General assemblies of Prelates have been some controversies that have been very vexatious have been pretermitted and others of less consequence have been determined Why did never any General Council condemn in express sentence the Pelagian heresie that great pest that subtle infection of Christendome and yet divers General Councils did assemble while the heresie was in the World Both these cases in several degrees leave men in their liberty of believing and prophesying The latter proclaims that all controversies cannot de determined to sufficient purposes and the first declares that those that are are not all of them matters of Faith and themselves are not so secure but they may be deceived and therefore possibly it were better it were let alone for if the latter leaves them divided in their opinions yet their Communions and therefore probably their charities are not divided but the former divides their Communions and hinders their interest and yet for ought is certain the accused person is the better Catholick And yet after all this it is not safety enough to say let the Council or Prelates determine Articles warily seldom with great caution and with much sweetness and modesty For though this be better than to do it rashly frequently and furiously yet if we once transgress the bounds set us by the Apostles in their Creed and not only preach other truths but determine them pro tribunali as well as pro cathedra although there be no errour in the subject matter as in Nice there was none yet if the next Ages say they will determine another Article with as much care and caution and pretend as great a necessity there is no hindring them but by giving reasons against it and so like enough they might have done against the decreeing the Article at Nice yet that this is not sufficient for since the Authority of the Nicene Council hath grown to the height of a mountainous prejudice against him that should say it was ill done the same reason and the same necessity may be pretended by any Age and in any Council and they think themselves warranted by the great precedent at Nice to proceed as peremptorily as they did but then if any other Assembly of learned men may possibly be deceived were it not better they should spare the labour than that they should with so great pomp and solemnities engage mens perswasions and determine an Article which after Ages must rescind for therefore most certainly in their own Age the point with safety of faith and salvation might have been disputed and disbelieved And that many mens faiths have been tyed up by Acts and Decrees of Councils for those Articles in which the next age did see a liberty had better been preserved because an errour was determined we shall afterward receive a more certain account 32. And therefore the Council of Nice did well and Constantinople did well so did Ephesus and Chalcedon but it is because the Articles were truly determined for that is part of my belief but who is sure it should be so before-hand and whether the points there determined were necessary or no to be believed or to be determined if peace had been concerned in it through the faction and division of the parties I suppose the judgment of Constantine the Emperour and the famous Hosius of Corduba is sufficient to instruct us whose authority I rather urge than reasons because it is a prejudice and not a reason I am to contend against it 33. So that such determinations and publishing of Confessions with Authority of Prince and Bishop are sometimes of very good use for the peace of the Church and they are good also to determine the judgment of indifferent persons whose reasons of either side are not too great to weigh down the probability of that Authority But for persons of confident and imperious understandings they on whose side the determination is are armed with a prejudice against the other and with a weapon to affront them but with no more to convince them and they against whom the decision is do the more readily betake themselves to the defensive and are engaged upon contestation and publick enmities for such Articles which either might safely have been unknown or with much charity disputed Therefore the Nicene Council although it have the advantage of an acquired and prescribing Authority yet it must
〈◊〉 and yet there was no such Tradition but a mistake in Papias but I find it nowhere spoke against till Dionysius of Alexandria confuted Nepo's Book and converted Coracian the Egyptian from the opinion Now if a Tradition whose beginning of being called so began with a Scholar of the Apostles for so was Papias and then continued for some Ages upon the meer Authority of so famous a man did yet deceive the Church much more fallible is the pretence when two or three hundred years after it but commences and then by some learned man is first called a Tradition Apostolical And so it happened in the case of the Arrian heresie which the Nicene Fathers did confute by objecting a contrary Tradition Apostolical as Theodoret reports and yet if they had not had better Arguments from Scripture than from Tradition they would have fail'd much in so good a cause for this very pretence the Arrians themselves made and desired to be tryed by the Fathers of the first three hundred years which was a confutation sufficient to them who pretended a clear Tradition because it was unimaginable that the Tradition should leap so as not to come from the first to the last by the middle But that this trial was sometime declined by that excellent man S. Athanasius although at other times confidently and truly pretended it was an Argument the Tradition was not so clear but both sides might with some fairness pretend to it And therefore one of the prime Founders of their heresie the Heretick Arâ—emon having observed the advantage might be taken by any Sect that would pretend Tradition because the medium was plausible and consisting of so many particulars that it was hard to be redargued pretended a Tradition from the Apostles that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the Tradition did descend by a constant succession in the Church of Rome to Pope Victors time inclusively and till Zephyrinus had interrupted the series and corrupted the Doctrine which pretence if it had not had some appearance of truth so as possibly to abuse the Church had not been worthy of confutation which yet was with care undertaken by an old Writer out of whom Eusebius transcribes a large passage to reprove the vanity of the pretender But I observe from hence that it was usual to pretend to Tradition and that it was easier pretended than confuted and I doubt not but oftener done than discovered A great Question arose in Africa concerning the Baptism of Hereticks whether it were valid or no. S. Cyprian and his party appealed to Scripture Stephen Bishop of Rome and his party would be judged by custome and Tradition Ecclesiastical See how much the nearer the Question was to a determination either that probation was not accounted by S. Syprian and the Bishops both of Asia and Africk to be a good Argument and sufficient to determine them or there was no certain Tradition against them for unless one of these two doe it nothing could excuse them from opposing a known truth unless peradventure S. Cyprian Firmilian the Bishops of Galatia Cappadocia and almost two parts of the World were ignorant of such a Tradition for they knew of none such and some of them expresly denied it And the sixth general Synod approves of the Canon made in the Council of Carthage under Cyprian upon this very ground because in praedictorum praesulum locis solum secundum traditam eis consuetudinem servatus est they had a particular Tradition for Rebaptization and therefore there could be no Tradition Universal against it or if there were they knew not of it but much for the contrary and then it would be remembred that a conceal'd Tradition was like a silent Thunder or a Law not promulgated it neither was known nor was obligatory And I shall observe this too that this very Tradition was so obscure and was so obscurely delivered silently proclaimed that S. Austin who disputed against the Donatists upon this very Question was not able to prove it but by a consequence which he thought probable and credible as appears in his discourse against the Donatists The Apostles saith S. Austin prescribed nothing in this particular But this custome which is contrary to Cyprian ought to be believed to have come from their Tradition as many other things which the Catholick Church observes That 's all the ground and all the reason nay the Church did waver concerning that Question and before the decision of a Council Cyprian and others might dissent without breach of charity It was plain then there was no clear Tradition in the Question possibly there might be a custome in some Churches postnate to the times of the Apostles but nothing that was obligatory no Tradition Apostolical But this was a suppletory device ready at hand when ever they needed it and S. Austin confuted the Pelagians in the Question of Original sin by the custome of exorcism and insufflation which S. Austin said came from the Apostles by Tradition which yet was then and is now so impossible to be proved that he that shall affirm it shall gain only the reputation of a bold man and a confident 4. Secondly I consider if the report of Traditions in the Primitive times so near the Ages Apostolical was so uncertain that they were fain to aym at them by conjectures and grope as in the dark the uncertainty is much increased since because there are many famous Writers whose works are lost which yet if they had continued they might have been good records to us as Clemens Romanus Egesippus Nepos Coracion Dionysius Areopagite of Alexandria of Corinth Firmilian and many more And since we see pretences have been made without reason in those Ages where they might better have been confuted than now they can it is greater prudence to suspect any later pretences since so many Sects have been so many wars so many corruptions in Authors so many Authors lost so much ignorance hath intervened and so many interests have been served that now the rule is to be altered and whereas it was of old time credible that that was Apostolical whose beginning they knew not now quite contrary we cannot safely believe them to be Apostolical unless we do know their beginning to have been from the Apostles For this consisting of probabilities and particulars which put together make up a moral demonstration the Argument which I now urge hath been growing these fifteen hundred years and if anciently there was so much as to evacuate the Authority of Tradition much more is there now absolutely to destroy it when all the particulars which time and infinite variety of humane accidents have been amassing together are now concentred and are united by way of constipation Because every Age and every great change and every heresie and every interest hath increased the difficulty of finding out true Traditions 5. Thirdly There are very many Traditions which are lost and
Tradition descends upon us with unequal certainty it would be very unequal to require of us an absolute belief of every thing not written for fear we be accounted to slight Tradition Apostolical And since no thing can require our supreme assent but that which is truly Catholick and Apostolick and to such a Tradition is required as Irenaeus says the consent of all those Churches which the Apostles planted and where they did preside this topick will be of so little use in judging heresies that beside what is deposited in Scripture it cannot be proved in any thing but in the Canon of Scripture it self and as it is now received even in that there is some variety 8. And therefore there is wholly a mistake in this business for when the Fathers appeal to Tradition and with much earnestness and some clamour they call upon Hereticks to conform to or to be tryed by Tradition it is such a Tradition as delivers the fundamental points of Christianity which were also recorded in Scripture But because the Canon was not yet perfectly consign'd they called to that testimony they had which was the testimony of the Churches Apostolical whose Bishops and Priests being the Antistites religionis did believe and preach Christian Religion and conserve all its great mysteries according as they have been taught Irenaeus calls this a Tradition Apostolical Christum accepisse calicem dixisse sanguinem suum esse docuisse nodum oblationem novi Testamenti quam Ecclesia per Apostolos accipiens offert per totum mundum And the Fathers in these Ages confute Hereticks by Ecclesiastical Tradition that is they confront against their impious and blasphemous doctrines that Religion which the Apostles having taught to the Churches where they did preside their Successors did still preach and for a long while together suffered not the enemy to sow tares amongst their wheat And yet these doctrines which they called Traditions were nothing but such fundamental truths which were in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Irenaeus in Eusebius observes in the instance of Polycarpus and it is manifest by considering what heresies they fought against the heresies of Ebion Cerinthus Nicolaitans Valentinians Carpocratians persons that denied the Son of God the Unity of the Godhead that preached impurity that practised Sorcery and Witch-craft And now that they did rather urge Tradition against them than Scripture was because the publick Doctrine of all the Apostolical Churches was at first more known and famous than many parts of the Scripture and because some Hereticks denied S. Lukes Gospel some received none but S. Matthews some rejected all S. Pauls Epistles and it was a long time before the whole Canon was consigned by universal testimony some Churches having one part some another Rome her self had not all so that in this case the Argument from Tradition was the most famous the most certain and the most prudent And now according to this rule they had more Traditions than we have and Traditions did by degrees lessen as they came to be written and their necessity was less as the knowledge of them was ascertained to us by a better Keeper of Divine Truths All that great mysteriousness of Christs Priest-hood the unity of his Sacrifice Christs Advocation and Intercession for us in Heaven and many other excellent Doctrines might very well be accounted Traditions before S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrews was published to all the World but now they are written truths and if they had not possibly we might either have lost them quite or doubted of them as we doe of many other Traditions by reason of the insufficiency of the propounder And therefore it was that S. Peter took order that the Gospel should be Writ for he had promised that he would doe something which after his decease should have these things in remembrance He knew it was not safe trusting the report of men where the fountain might quickly run dry or be corrupted so insensibly that no cure could be found for it nor any just notice taken of it till it were incurable And indeed there is scarce any thing but what is written in Scripture that can with any confidence of Argument pretend to derive from the Apostles except rituals and manners of ministration but no doctrines or speculative mysteries are so transmitted to us by so clear a current that we may see a visible channel and trace it to the Primitive fountains It is said to be a Tradition Apostolical that no Priest should baptize without chrism and the command of the Bishop Suppose it were yet we cannot be obliged to believe it with much confidence because we have but little proof for it scarce any thing but the single testimony of S. Hierom. And yet if it were this is but a ritual of which in passing by I shall give that account That suppose this and many more rituals did derive clearly from Tradition Apostolical which yet but very few doe yet it is hard that any Church should be charged with crime for not observing such rituals because we see some of them which certainly did derive from the Apostles are expired and gone out in a desuetude such as are abstinence from bloud and from things strangled the coenobitick life of secular persons the colledge of widows to worship standing upon the Lords day to give milk and honey to the newly baptized and many more of the like nature now there having been no mark to distinguish the necessity of one from the indifferency of the other they are all alike necessary or alike indifferent If the former why does no Church observe them If the latter why does the Church of Rome charge upon others the shame of novelty for leaving of some Rites and Ceremonies which by her own practice we are taught to have no obligation in them but the adiaphorous S. Paul gave order that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife The Church of Rome will not allow so much other Churches allow more The Apostles commanded Christians to Fast on Wednesday and Friday as appears in their Canons the Church of Rome Fasts Friday and Saturday and not on Wednesday The Apostes had their Agapae or love Feasts we should believe them scandalous They used a kiss of charity in ordinary addresses the Church of Rome keeps it only in their Masse other Churches quite omit it The Apostles permitted Priests and Deacons to live in conjugal Society as appears in the 5. Can. of the Apostles which to them is an Argument who believe them such and yet the Church of Rome by no means will endure it nay more Michael Medina gives Testimony that of 84. Canons Apostolical which Clemens collected scarce six or eight are observed by the Latine Church and Peresius gives this account of it In illis contineri multa quae temporum corruptione non plenè observantu◠aliis pro temporis materiae qualitate aut obliteratis aut totius
particular authority of these men whose Commentaries they are and therefore must be considered with them 12. The summe is this Since the Fathers who are the best witnesses of Traditions yet were infinitely deceived in their account since sometimes they guest at them and conjectured by way of Rule and Discourse and not of their knowledge not by evidence of the thing since many are called Traditions which were not so many are uncertain whether they were or no yet confidently pretended and this uncertainty which at first was great enough is increased by infinite causes and accidents in the succession of 1600 years since the Church hath been either so careless or so abused that she could not or would not preserve Traditions with carefulness and truth since it was ordinary for the old Writers to set out their own fancies and the Rites of their Church which had been Ancient under the specious Title of Apostolical Traditions since some Traditions rely but upon single Testimony at first and yet descending upon others come to be attested by many whose Testimony though conjunct yet in value is but single because it relies upon the first single Relator and so can have no greater authority or certainty than they derive from the single person since the first Ages who were most competent to consign Tradition yet did consign such Traditions as be of a nature wholly discrepant from the present Questions and speak nothing at all or very imperfectly to our purposes and the following ages are no fit witnesses of that which was not transmitted to them because they could not know it at all but by such transmission and prior consignation since what at first was a Tradition came afterwards to be written and so ceased its being a Tradition yet the credit of Traditions commenced upon the certainty and reputation of those truths first delivered by word afterward consigned by writing since what was certainly Tradition Apostolical as many Rituals were are rejected by the Church in several ages and are gone out into a desuetude and lastly since beside the no necessity of Traditions there being abundantly enough in Scripture there are many things called Traditions by the Fathers which they themselves either proved by no Authors or by Apocryphal and spurious and Heretical the matter of Tradition will in very much be so uncertain so false so suspicious so contradictory so improbable so unproved that if a Question be contested and be offered to be proved only by Tradition it will be very hard to impose such a proposition to the belief of all men with an imperiousness or resolved determination but it will be necessary men should preserve the liberty of believing and prophecying and not part with it upon a worse merchandise and exchange than Esau made for his birthright SECT VI. Of the uncertainty and insufficiency of Councils Ecclesiastical to the same purpose 1. BUT since we are all this while in uncertainty it is necessary that we should address our selves somewhere where we may rest the soal of our foot And Nature Scripture and Experience teach the World in matters of Question to submit to some final sentence For it is not reason that controversies should continue till the erring person shall be willing to condemn himself and the Spirit of God hath directed us by that great precedent at Jerusalem to address our selves to the Church that in a plenary Council and Assembly she may Synodically determine Controversies So that if a General Council have determined a Question or expounded Scripture we may no more disbelieve the Decree than the Spirit of God himself who speaks in them And indeed if all Assemblies of Bishops were like that first and all Bishops were of the same spirit of which the Apostles were I should obey their Decree with the same Religion as I do them whose Preface was Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis and I doubt not but our blessed Saviour intended that the Assemblies of the Church should be Judges of the Controversies and guides of our perswasions in matters of difficulty But he also intended they should proceed according to his will which he had revealed and those precedents which he had made authentick by the immediate assistance of his holy Spirit He hath done his part but we do not do ours And if any private person in the simplicity and purity of his soul desires to find out a truth of which he is in search and inquisition if he prays for wisdom we have a promise he shall be heard and answered liberally and therefore much more when the representatives of the Catholick Church do meet because every person there hath in individuo a title to the promise and another title as he is a governour and a guide of souls and all of them together have another title in their united capacity especially if in that union they pray and proceed with simplicity and purity so that there is no disputing against the pretence and promises and authority of General Councils For if any one man can hope to be guided by Gods Spirit in the search the pious and impartial and unprejudicate search of truth then much more may a General Council If no private man can hope for it then truth is not necessary to be found nor we are not obliged to search for it or else we are saved by chance But if private men can by vertue of a promise upon certain conditions be assured of finding out sufficient truth much more shall a General Council So that I consider thus There are many promises pretended to belong to General Assemblies in the Church but I know not any ground nor any pretence that they shall be absolutely assisted without any condition on their own parts and whether they will or no Faith is a vertue as well as Charity and therefore consists in liberty and choice and hath nothing in it of necessity There is no Question but that they are obliged to proceed according to some rule for they expect no assistance by way of Enthusiasme if they should I know no warrant for that neither did any General Council ever offer a Decree which they did not think sufficiently proved by Scripture Reason or Tradition as appears in the Acts of the Councils now then if they be tied to conditions it is their duty to observe them but whether it be certain that they will observe them that they will do all their duty that they will not sin even in this particular in the neglect of their duty that 's the consideration So that if any man questions the Title and Authority of General Councils and whether or no great promises appertain to them I suppose him to be much mistaken but he also that thinks all of them have proceeded according to rule and reason and that none of them were deceived because possibly they might have been truly directed is a stranger to the History of the Church and to the perpetual instances and experiments of
of Prophecy had not attested the Divinity both of his Person and his Office we should have wanted many degrees of confidence which now we have upon the truth of Christian Religion But now since we are foretold by this surer word of prophecy that is the prediction of Jesus Christ that Antichâ—ist should come in all wonders and signs and lying miracles and that the Church saw much of that already verified in Simon Magus Apollonius Tyaneus and Manetho and divers Hereticks it is now come to that pass that the Argument in its best advantage proves nothing so much as that the Doctrine which it pretends to prove is to be suspected because it was foretold that false doctrine should be obtruded under such pretences But then when not onely true Miracles are an insufficient argument to prove a Truth since the establishment of Christianity but that the Miracles themselves are false and spurious it makes that Doctrine in whose defence they come justly to be suspected because they are a demonstration that the interessed persons use all means leave nothing unattempted to prove their propositions but since they so fail as to bring nothing from God but something from the Devil for its justification it 's a great sign that the Doctrine is false because we know the Devil unless it be against his will does nothing to prove a true proposition that makes against him And now then those persons who will endure no man of another Opinion might doe well to remember how by their Exorcisms their Devils tricks at Lowdon and the other side pretending to cure mad folks and persons bewitched and the many discoveries of their juggling they have given so much reason to their adversaries to suspect their Doctrine that either they must not be ready to condemn their persons who are made suspicious by their indirect proceeding in attestation of that which they value so high as to call their Religion or else they must condemn themselves for making the scandal active and effectual 6. As for false Legends it will be of the same consideration because they are false Testimonies of Miracles that were never done which differs onely from the other as a lie in words from a lie in action but of this we have witness enough in that Decree of Pope Leo X. Session the eleventh of the last Lateran Council where he excommunicates all the forgers and inventers of Visions and false Miracles which is a testimony that it was then a practice so publick as to need a Law for its suppression And if any man shall doubt whether it were so or not let him see the Centum gravamina of the Princes of Germany where it is highly complain'd of But the extreme stupidity and sottishness of the inventers of lying stories is so great as to give occasion to some persons to suspect the truth of all Church-story witness the Legend of Lombardy of the Authour of which the Bishop of the Canaries gives this Testimony In illo enim libro miraculorum monstra saepius quà m vera miracula legas Hanc homo scripsit ferrei oris plumbei cordis animi certè parùm severi prudentis But I need not descend so low for S. Gregory and Ven. Bede themselves reported Miracles for the authority of which they onely had the report of the common people and it is not certain that S. Hierome had so much in his stories of S. Paul and S. Anthony and the Fauns and the Satyrs which appeared to them and desired their prayers But I shall onely by way of eminency note what Sir Thomas More says in his Epistle to Ruthal the King's Secretary before the Dialogue of Lucian Philopseudes that therefore he undertook the translation of that Dialogue to free the world from a Superstition that crept in under the face and title of Religion For such lies says he are transmitted to us with such authority that a certain Impostor had perswaded S. Austin that the very Fable which Lucian scoffs and makes sport withall in that Dialogue was a real story and acted in his own days The Epistle is worth the reading to this purpose but he says this abuse grew to such a height that scarce any life of any Saint or Martyr is truly related but is full of lies and lying wonders and some persons thought they served God if they did honour to God's Saints by inventing some prodigious story or Miracle for their reputation So that now it is no wonder if the most pious men are apt to believe and the greatest Historians are easie enough to report such Stories which serving to a good end are also consigned by the report of persons otherwise pious and prudent enough I will not instance in Vincentius his Speculum Turonensis Thomas Cantipratanus John Herolt Vitae Patrum nor the Revelations of Saint Brigit though confirmed by two Popes Martin V. and Boniface IX Even the best and most deliberate amongst them Lippoman Surius Lipsius Bzovius and Baronius are so full of Fables that they cause great disreputation to the other Monuments and Records of Antiquity and yet doe no advantage to the cause under which they serve and take pay They doe no good and much hurt but yet accidentally they may procure this advantage to Charity since they doe none to Faith that since they have so abused the credit of Story that our confidences want much of that support we should receive from her records of Antiquity yet the men that dissent and are scandalized by such proceedings should be excused if they should chance to be afraid of truth that hath put on garments of imposture and since much violence is done to the truth and certainty of their judging let none be done to their liberty of judging since they cannot meet a right Guide let them have a charitable Judge And since it is one very great argument against Simon Magus and against Mahomet that we can prove their Miracles to be Impostures it is much to be pitied if timorous and suspicious persons shall invincibly and honestly less apprehend a Truth which they see conveyed by such a testimony which we all use as an argument to reprove the Mahometan Superstition 7. Sixthly Here also comes in all the weaknesses and trifling prejudices which operate not by their own strength but by advantage taken from the weakness of some understandings Some men by a Proverb or a common saying are determined to the belief of a Proposition for which they have no argument better then such a proverbial sentence And when divers of the common people in Jerusalem were ready to yield their understandings to the belief of the Messias they were turned clearly from their apprehensions by that Proverb Look and see does any good thing come from Galilee and this When Christ comes no man knows from whence he is but this man was known of what parents of what City And thus the weakness of their understanding was abused and that
for all that law of killing such false Prophets were permitted with impunity in the Synagogue as appears beyond exception in the great divisions and disputes between the Pharisees and the Sadducees I deny not but certain and known Idolatry or any other sort of practicall impiety with its principiant Doctrine may be punished corporally because it is no other but matter of fact but no matter of mere Opinion no errours that of themselves are not sins are to be persecuted or punished by death or corporal inflictions This is now to be proved 3. Secondly All the former Discourse is sufficient argument how easie it is for us in such matters to be deceived So long as Christian Religion was a simple profession of the Articles of Belief and a hearty prosecution of the rules of good life the fewness of the Articles and the clearness of the Rule was cause of the seldome prevarication But when Divinity is swelled up to so great a body when the several Questions which the peevishness and wantonness of sixteen Ages have commenced are concentred into one and from all these Questions something is drawn into the body of Theologie till it hath ascended up to the greatnesse of a mountain and the summe of Divinity collected by Aquinas makes a volume as great as was that of Livy mocked at in the Epigram Quem mea vix totum bibliotheca capit it is impossible for any industry to consider so many particulars in the infinite numbers of Questions as are necessary to be considered before we can with certainty determine any And after all the considerations which we can have in a whole Age we are not sure not to be deceived The obscurity of some Questions the nicity of some Articles the intricacy of some Revelations the variety of humane understandings the windings of Logick the tricks of adversaries the subtilty of Sophisters the ingagement of educations personal affections the portentous number of writers the infinity of Authorities the vastness of some arguments as consisting in enumeration of many particulars the uncertainty of others the several degrees of probability the difficulties of Scripture the invalidity of probation of Tradition the opposition of all exteriour arguments to each other and their open contestation the publick violence done to Authors and records the private arts and supplantings the falsifyings the indefatigable industry of some men to abuse all understandings and all perswasions into their own Opinions these and thousands more even all the difficulty of things and all the weaknesses of man and all the arts of the Devil have made it impossible for any man in so great variety of matter not to be deceived No man pretends to it but the Pope and no man is more deceived then he is in that very particular 4. Thirdly From hence proceeds a danger which is consequent to this proceeding for if we who are so apt to be deceived and so insecure in our resolution of Questions disputable should persecute a disagreeing person we are not sure we do not fight against God For if his Proposition be true and persecuted then because all Truth derives from God this proceeding is against God and therefore this is not to be done upon Gamaliel's ground lest peradventure we be found to fight against God of which because we can have no security at least in this case we have all the guilt of a doubtfull or an uncertain Conscience For if there be no security in the thing as I have largely proved the Conscience in such cases is as uncertain as the Question is and if it be not doubtfull where it is uncertain it is because the man is not wise but as confident as ignorant the first without reason and the second without excuse And it is very disproportionable for a man to persecute another certainly for a Proposition that if he were wise he would know is not certain at least the other person may innocently be uncertain of it If he be killed he is certainly killed but if he be called Heretick it is not so certain that he is an Heretick It were good therefore that proceedings were according to evidence and the rivers not swell over the banks nor a certain definitive sentence of Death passed upon such perswasions which cannot certainly be defined And this argument is of so much the more force because we see that the greatest persecutions that ever have been were against Truth even against Christianity itself and it was a prediction of our Blessed Saviour that persecution should be the lot of true believers And if we compute the experience of suffering Christendom and the prediction that Truth should suffer with those few instances of suffering Hereticks it is odds but persecution is on the wrong side and that it is errour and Heresie that is cruel and tyrannical especially since the Truth of Jesus Christ and of his Religion are so meek so charitable and so merciful And we may in this case exactly use the words of S. Paul But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the spirit even so it is now and so it ever will be till Christ's second coming 5. Fourthly Whoever persecutes a disagreeing person arms all the world against himself and all pious people of his own perswasion when the scales of Authority return to his adversary and attest his contradictory and then what can he urge for mercy for himself or his party that sheweth none to others If he says that he is to be spared because he believes true but the other was justly persecuted because he was in errour he is ridiculous For he is as confidently believed to be an Heretick as he believes his adversary such and whetheâ— he be or no being the thing in question of this he is not to be his own judge but he that hath Authority on his side will be sure to judge against him So that what either side can indifferently make use of it is good that neither would because neither side can with reason sufficiently doe it in prejudice of the other If a man will say that every man must take his adventure and if it happens Authority to be with him he will persecute his adversaries and if it turns against him he will bear it as well as he can and hope for a reward of Martyrdom and innocent suffering besides that this is so equal to be said of all sides and besides that this is a way to make an eternall disunion of hearts and charities and that it will make Christendom nothing but a shambles and a perpetuall butchery and as fast as mens wits grow wanton or confident or proud or abused so often there will be new executions and massacres besides all this it is most unreasonable and unjust as being contrariant to those Laws of Justice and Charity whereby we are bound with greater zeal to spare and preserve an innocent then to condemn a guilty person and there
for matters of question which have not in them an enmity to the publick tranquillity as the Republick hath nothing to doe upon the ground of all the former discourses so if the Church meddles with them where they do not derive into ill life either in the person or in the consequent or else are destructions of the foundation of Religion which is all one for that those fundamental Articles are of greatest necessity in order to a vertuous and godly life which is wholly built upon them and therefore are principally necessary if she meddles farther otherwise then by preaching and conferring and exhortation she becomes tyrannical in her government makes herself an immediate judge of Consciences and perswasions lords it over their Faith destroys unity and charity and as he that dogmatizes the Opinion becomes criminal if he troubles the Church with an immodest peevish and pertinacious proposall of his Article not simply necessary so the Church does not do her duty if she so condemns it pro tribunali as to enjoyn him and all her subjects to believe the contrary And as there may be pertinacy in Doctrine so there may be pertinacy in judging and both are faults The peace of the Church and the unity of her Doctrine is best conserved when it is judged by the proportion it hath to that rule of unity which the Apostles gave that is the Creed for Articles of mere belief and the precepts of Jesus Christ and the practicall rules of piety which are most plain and easie and without controversie set down in the Gospels and writings of the Apostles But to multiply Articles and adopt them into the family of the Faith and to require assent to such Articles which as Saint Paul's phrase is are of doubtfull disputation equal to that assent we give to matters of Faith is to build a tower upon the top of a Bulrush and the farther the effect of such proceedings does extend the worse they are the very making such a Law is unreasonable the inflicting spiritual censures upon them that cannot doe so much violence to their understanding as to obey it is unjust and ineffectuall but to punish the person with death or with corporal infliction indeed it is effectuall but it is therefore tyrannicall We have seen what the Church may doe towards restraining false or differing Opinions next I shall consider by way of Corollary what the Prince may doe as for his interest and onely in securing his people and serving the ends of true Religion SECT XVI Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give Toleration to severall Religions 1. FOR upon these very grounds we may easily give account of that great Question Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give Toleration to several Religions For first It is a great fault that men will call the several Sects of Christians by the names of several Religions The Religion of Jesus Christ is the form of sound Doctrine and wholsome words which is set down in Scripture indefinitely actually conveyed to us by plain places and separated as for the question of necessary or not necessary by the Symbol of the Apostles Those impertinencies which the wantonnesse and vanity of men hath commenced which their interests have promoted which serve not Truth so much as their own ends are far from being distinct Religions for matters of Opinion are no parts of the Worship of God nor in order to it but as they promote obedience to his Commandments and when they contribute towards it are in that proportion as they contribute parts and actions and minute particulars of that Religion to whose end they do or pretend to serve And such are all the Sects and all the pretences of Christians but pieces and minutes of Christianity if they do serve the great end as every man for his own Sect and interest believes for his share it does 2. Toleration hath a double sense or purpose For sometimes by it men understand a publick licence and exercise of a Sect sometimes it is onely an indemnity of the persons privately to convene and to opine as they see cause and as they mean to answer to God Both these are very much to the same purpose unlesse some persons whom we are bound to satisfie be scandalized and then the Prince is bound to doe as he is bound to satisfie To God it is all one For abstracting from the offence of persons which is to be considered just as our obligation is to content the persons it is all one whether we indulge to them to meet publickly or privately to doe actions of Religion concerning which we are not perswaded that they are truly holy To God it is just one to be in the dark and in the light the thing is the same onely the Circumstance of publick and private is different which cannot be concerned in any thing nor can it concern any thing but the matter of Scandal and relation to the minds and fantasies of certain persons 3. So that to tolerate is not to persecute And the Question whether the Prince may tolerate divers perswasions is no more then whether he may lawfully persecute any man for not being of his Opinion Now in this case he is just so to tolerate diversity of perswasions as he is to tolerate publick actions for no Opinion is judicable nor no person punishable but for a sin and if his Opinion by reason of its managing or its effect be a sin in itself or becomes a sin to the person then as he is to doe towards other sins so to that Opinion or man so opining But to believe so or not so when there is no more but mere believing is not in his power to enjoyn therefore not to punish And it is not onely lawfull to tolerate disagreeing Perswasions but the Authority of God onely is competent to take notice of it and infallible to determine it and fit to judge and therefore no humane Authority is sufficient to doe all those things which can justifie the inflicting temporal punishments upon such as doe not conform in their perswasions to a Rule or Authority which is not onely fallible but supposed by the disagreeing person to be actually deceived 4. But I consider that in the Toleration of a different Opinion Religion is not properly and immediately concerned so as in any degree to be endangered For it may be safe in diversity of perswasions and it is also a part of Christian Religion that the liberty of mens Consciences should be preserved in all things where God hath not set a limit and made a restraint that the Soul of man should be free and acknowledge no Master but Jesus Christ that matters spiritual should not be restrained by punishments corporal that the same meekness and charity should be preserved in the promotion of Christianity that gave it foundation and increment and firmness in its first publication that Conclusions should not be more dogmatical then the virtual resolution
family for it is said of the Ruler at Capernaum that he believed and all his house Now you may also suppose that in his house were little babes that is likely enough and you may suppose that they did believe too before they could understand but that 's not so likely and then the argument from baptizing of Stephen's houshold may be allowed just as probable But this is unman-like to build upon such slight airy conjectures 25. But Tradition by all means must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical that Infants were baptized But at this we are not much moved for we who rely upon the written Word of God as sufficient to establish all true Religion do not value the Allegation of Traditions And however the world goes none of the Reformed Churches can pretend this Argument against this Opinion because they who reject Tradition when 't is against them must not pretend it at all for them But if we should allow the Topick to be good yet how will it be verified For so far as it can yet appear it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen for from him Austin had it For as for the testimony pretended out of Justin Martyr it is to no purpose because the book from whence the words are cited is not Justin's who was before Origen and yet he cites Origen Irenaeus But who please may see it sufficiently condemned by Sixtus Senensis Biblioth Sanct. l. 4. verbo Justinus And as for the â—â—stimony of Origen we know nothing of it for every Heretick interessed person did interpolate all his Works so much that we cannot discern which are his which not Now a Tradition Apostolical if it be not consigned with a fuller testimony then of one person whom all after Ages have condemned of many errours will obtain so little reputation amongst those who know that things have upon greater Authority pretended to derive from the Apostles and yet falsely that it will be a great Argument that he is â—redulous weak that shall be determined by so weak probation in matters of so great concernment And the truth of the business is as there was no command of Scripture to oblige children to the susception of it so the necessity of Paedo-baptism was not determined in the Church till in the eighth Age after Christ but in the year 418. in the Milevitan Council a Provincial of Africa there was a Canon made for Paedo-baptism never till then I grant it was practised in Africa before that time they or some of them thought well of it though that be no Argument for us to think so yet none of them did ever before pretend it to be necessary none to have been a precept of the Gospel S. Austin was the first that ever preached it to be absolutely necessary and it was in his heat anger against Pelagius who had warmed chased him so in that question that it made him innovate in other Doctrines possibly of more concernment then this And although this was practised anciently in Africa yet that it was without an opinion of necessity and not often there nor at all in other places we have the testimony of the learned Paedo-baptist Ludovicus Vives who in his Annotations upon Saint Austin De Civit. Dei l. 1. c. 27. affirms neminem nisi adultum antiquitus solere baptizari 26. But besides that the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical we have very good evidence from Antiquity that it was the opinion of the Primitive Church that Infants ought not to be baptized and this is clear in the sixth Canon of the Council of Nâ—ocaesarea The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sense is this A woman with child may be baptized when she please for her Baptism concerns not the child The reason of the connexion of the parts of that Canon is in the following words Because every one in that confession is to give a demonstration of his own choice and election Meaning plainly that if the Baptism of the mother did also pass upon the child it were not fit for a pregnant woman to receive Baptism because in that Sacrament there being a confession of Faith which confession supposes understanding and free choice it is not reasonable the child should be consigned with such a mysterie since it cannot doe any act of choice or understanding And to this purpose are the words of Balsamon speaking of this Decree and of Infants unborn not to be baptized he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The unborn babe is not to be baptized because he neither is come to light nor can he make choice of the confession that is of the Articles to be confessed in Divine baptism To the same sense are the words of Zonaras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Embryo or unborn babe does then need Baptism when he can chuse The Canon speaks reason and it intimates a practice which was absolutely universal in the Church of interrogating the Catechumens concerning the Articles of Creed Which is one Argument that either they did not admit Infants to Baptism or that they did prevaricate egregiously in asking questions of them who themselves knew were not capable of giving answer But the former was the more probable according to the testimony of Walafridus Stabo Notandum deinde primis temporibus illis solummodo Baptismi gratiam dari solitam qui corporis mentisâ—integritate jam ad hoc pervenerunt ut scire intelligere possent quid emolumenti in Baptismo consequendum quid confitendum atque credendum quid postremò renatis in Christo esset servandum It is to be noted that in those first times the grace of Baptism was wont to be given to those onely who by their integrity of mind and body were arrived to this that they could know and understand what profit was to be had by Baptism what was to be confessed and believ'd in Baptism and what is the duty of them who are born again in Christ. 27. But to supply their incapacity by the answer of a Godfather is but the same unreasonableness acted with a worse circumstance and there is no sensible account can be given of it For that which some imperfectly murmure concerning stipulations civil performed by Tutors in the name of their Pupils is an absolute vanity For what if by positive constitution of the Romans such solennites of Law are required in all stipulations and by indulgence are permitted in the case of a notable benefit accruing to Minors must God be tied and Christian Religion transact her mysteries by proportion and compliance with the Law of the Romans I know God might if he would have appointed Godfathers to give answer in behalf of the Children and to be Fide jussors for them but we cannot find any Authority or ground that he hath and if he had then it is to be supposed he would have given them commission to
and predispositions of the Suscipient If by the external work of the Sacrament alone how does this differ from the opus operatum of the Papists save that it is worse For they say the Sacrament does not produce its effect but in a Suscipient disposed by all requisites and due preparatives of piety Faith and Repentance though in a subject so disposed they say the Sacrament by its own virtue does it but this Opinion says it does it of itself without the help or so much as the coexistence of any condition but the mere reception But if the Sacrament does not doe its work alone but per modum recipientis according to the predispositions of the Suscipient then because Infants can neither hinder it nor doe any thing to farther it it does them no benefit at all And if any man runs for succour to that exploded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Infants have Faith or any other inspired habit of I know not what or how we desire no more advantage in the world then that they are constrained to an answer without Revelation against reason common sense and all the experience in the world The summe of the Argument in short is this though under another representment Either Baptism is a mere Ceremony or it implies a Duty on our part If it be a Ceremony onely how does it sanctifie us or make the comers thereunto perfect If it implies a Duty on our part how then can children receive it who cannot doe duty at all And indeed this way of ministration makes Baptism to be wholly an outward duty a work of the Law a carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the letter without regard of the Spirit to be satisfied with shadows to return to bondage to relinquish the mysteriousness the substance and Spirituality of the Gospel Which Argument is of so much the more consideration because under the Spiritual Covenant or the Gospel of Grace if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol which it does when the Symbols are Seals and consignations of the Grace as it is said the Sacraments are yet it always accompanies it but never follows in order of time And this is clear in the perpetual analogie of Holy Scripture For Baptism is never propounded mentioned or enjoyned as a means of remission of sins or of eternal life but something of duty choice and sanctity is joyned with it in order to production of the end so mentioned Know ye not that as many as are baptized into Christ Jesus are baptized into his death There is the Mystery and the Symbol together and declared to be perpetually united 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All of us who were baptized into one were baptized into the other not onely into the name of Christ but into his death also But the meaning of thi◠as it is explained in the following words of S. Paul makes much for our purpose For to be baptized into his death signifies to be buried with him in Baptism that as Christ rose from the dead we also should walk in newness of life That 's the full mystery of Baptism For being baptized into his death or which is all one in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the likeness of his death cannot goe alone if we be so planted into Christ we shall be partakers of his Resurrection and that is not here instanced in precise reward but in exact duty for all this is nothing but crucifixion of the old man a destroying the body of sin that we no longer serve sin This indeed is truly to be baptized both in the Symbol and the Mystery Whatsoever is less then this is but the Symbol only a mere Ceremony an opus operatum a dead letter an empty shadow an instrument without an agent to manage or force to actuate it Plainer yet Whosoever are baptized into Christ have put on Christ have put on the new man But to put on this new man is to be formed in righteousness and holiness and truth This whole Argument is the very words of S. Paul The Major proposition is dogmatically determined Gal. 3.27 The Minor in Ephes. 4.24 The Conclusion then is obvious that they who are not formed new in righteousness and holiness and truth they who remaining in the present incapacities cannot walk in the newness of life they have not been baptized into Christ and then they have but one member of the distinction used by S. Peter they have that Baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh but they have not that Baptism which is the answer of a good conscience towards God which is the only Baptism that saves us And this is the case of children And then the case is thus As Infants by the force of nature cannot put themselves into a supernatural condition and therefore say the Paedo-baptists they need Baptism to put them into it so if they be baptized before the use of Reason before the works of the Spirit before the operations of Grace before they can throw off the works of darkness and live in righteousness and newness of life they are never the nearer From the pains of Hell they shall be saved by the mercies of God and their own innocence though they die in puris naturalibus and Baptism will carry them no further For that Baptism that save us is not the onely washing with water of which onely children are capable but the answer of a good conscience towards God of which they are not capable till the use of Reason till they know to chuse the good and refuse the evil And from thence I consider anew That all vows made by persons under others names stipulations made by Minors are not valid till they by a supervening act after they are of sufficient age do ratifie them Why then may not Infants as well make the vow de novo as de novo ratifie that which was made for them ab antiquo when they come to years of choice If the Infant vow be invalid till the Manly confirmation why were it not as good they staid to make it till that time before which if they do make it it is to no purpose This would be considered 32. And in conclusion Our way is the surer way for not to baptize children till they can give an account of their Faith is the most proportionable to an act of reason and humanity and it can have no danger in it For to say that Infants may be damned for want of Baptism a thing which is not in their power to acquire they being persons not yet capable of a Law is to affirm that of God which we dare not say of any wise and good man Certainly it is much derogatory to God's Justice and a plain defiance to the infinite reputation of his Goodness 33. And therefore who-ever will pertinaciously persist in this opinion of the Paedo-baptists and practise it accordingly they pollute the blood of the everlasting
the Lord taketh them up and so it is in this particular what is wanting to them by the neglect of others God will supply by his own graces and immediate dispensation But if Baptism be made necessary to all then it ought to be procured for those who cannot procure it for themselves just as meat and drink and physick and education And it is in this as it is in blessing little babes cannot ask it but their needs require it and therefore as by their friends they were brought to Christ to have it so they must without their asking minister it to them who yet are bound to seek it as soon as they can The precept bindes them both in their several periods Ad 31. But their next great strength consists in this Dilemma If Baptism does no good there needs no contention about it if it does then either by the opus operatum of the Sacrament or by the dispositions of the suscipient If the former that 's worse then Popery if the latter then Infants cannot receive it because they cannot dispose themselves to its reception I answer that it works its effect neither by the Ceremony alone nor yet by that and the dispositions together but by the grace of God working as he please seconding his own Ordinance and yet Infants are rightly disposed for the receiving the blessings and effects of Baptism For the understanding of which we are to observe that God's graces are so free that they are given to us upon the accounts of his own goodness onely and for the reception of them we are tied to no other predispositions but that we do not hinder them For what worthiness can there be in any man to receive the first grace before grace there can be nothing good in us and therefore before the first grace there is nothing that can deserve it because before the first grace there is no grace and consequently no worthiness But the dispositions which are required in men of reason is nothing but to remove the hinderances of God's grace to take off the contrarieties to the good Spirit of God Now because in Infants there is nothing that can resist God's Spirit nothing that can hinder him nothing that can grieve him they have that simplicity and nakedness that passivity and negative disposition or non-hinderances to which all that men can doe in disposing themselves are but approaches and similitudes and therefore Infants can receive all that they need all that can doe them benefit And although there are some effects of the Holy Spirit which require natural capacities to be their foundation yet those are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or powers of working but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the inheritance and the title to the Promises require nothing on our part but that we can receive them that we put no hinderance to them for that is the direct meaning of our Blessed Saviour He that doth not receive the kingdome of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein that is without that nakedness and freedome from obstruction and impediment none shall enter Upon the account of this Truth all that long harangue that pursues this Dilemma in other words to the same purposes will quickly come to nothing For Baptism is not a mere Ceremony but assisted by the grace of the Lord Jesus the communication of the Holy Spirit and yet it requires a duty on our part when we are capable of duty and need it but is enabled to produce its effect without any positive disposition even by the negative of children by their not putting a bar to the Holy Spirit of God that God may be glorified and may be all in all Two particulars more are considerable in their Argument The first is a Syllogism made up out of the words of S. Paul All that are baptized into Christ have put on Christ. The Minor proposition is with a little straining some other words of S. Paul thus But they that put on Christ or the new man must be formed in righteousness and holiness of truth for so the Apostle Put ye on the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness But Infants cannot put on Christ to any such purposes and therefore cannot be baptized into Christ. I answer that to put on Christ is to become like unto him and we put him on in all ways by which we resemble him The little babes of Bethlehem were like unto Christ when it was given to them to die for him who died for them and us We are like unto him when we have put on his robe of righteousness when we are invested with the wedding garment when we submit to his will and to his doctrine when we are adopted to his inheritance when we are innocent and when we are washed and when we are buried with him in Baptism The expression is a metaphor and cannot be confined to one particular signification but if it could yet the Apostle does not say that all who in any sense put on the new man are actually holy and righteous neither does he say that by the new man is meant Christ for that also is another metaphor and it means a new manner of living When Christ is opposed to Adam Christ is called the new man but when the new man is opposed to the old coversation then by the new man Christ is not meant and so it is in this place it signifies to become a new man and it is an exhortation to those who had lived wickedly now to live holily and according to the intentions of Christianity But to take two metaphors from two several books and to concentre them into one signification and to make them up into one Syllogism is fallacia quatuor terminorum they prove nothing but the craft of the men or the weakness of the cause For the words to the Ephesians were spoken to them who already had been baptized who had before that in some sense put on Christ but yet he calls upon them to put on the new man therefore this is something else and it means that they should verifie what they had undertaken in Baptism which also can concern children but is seasonable to urge it to them as S. Paul does to the Ephesians after their Baptism But yet after all let the argument press as far as it is intended yet Infants even in the sense of the Apostle do put on the new man which after God is created in righteousness for so are they they are a new creation they are born again they are efformed after the image of Christ by the designation and adoption of the Holy Spirit but as they cannot doe acts of reason and yet are created in a reasonable nature so they are anew created in righteousness even before they can doe acts spiritual that is they are designati sanctitatis as Tertullian's expression is they are in the second birth as in the first instructed
with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation 17. But for the Article itself We all say that Christ is there present some way or other extraordinary and it will not be amiss to worship him at that time when he gives himself to us in so mysterious a manner and with so great advantages especially since the whole Office is a consociation of divers actions of Religion and worship Now in all opinions of those men who think it an act of Religion to communicate and to offer a Divine worship is given to Christ and is transmitted to him by mediation of that action and that Sacrament and it is no more in the Church of Rome but that they differ and mistake infinitely in the manner of his presence which errour is wholly seated in the understanding and does not communicate with the will For all agree that the Divinity and the Humanity of the Son of God is the ultimate and adequate object of Divine adoration and that it is incommunicable to any creature whatsoever and before they venture to pass an act of adoration they believe the bread to be annihilated or turned into his substance who may lawfully be worshipped and they who have these thoughts are as much enemies of Idolatry as they that understand better how to avoid that inconvenience which is supposed to be the crime which they formally hate and we materially avoid This consideration was concerning the Doctrine itself 18. Secondly And now for any danger to mens persons for suffering such a Doctrine this I shall say that if they who doe it are not formally guilty of Idolatry there is no danger that they whom they perswade to it should be guilty And what persons soever believe it to be Idolatry to worship the Sacrament while that perswasion remains will never be brought to it there is no fear of that and he that perswades them to doe it by altering their perswasions and beliefs does no hurt but altering the Opinions of the men and abusing their understandings but when they believe it to be no Idolatry then their so believing it is sufficient security from that crime which hath so great a tincture and residency in the will that from thence onely it hath its being criminall 19. Thirdly However if it were Idolatry I think the precept of God to the Jews of killing false and idolatrous Prophets will be no warrant for Christians so to doe For in the case of the Apostles and the men of Samaria when James and John would have called for fire to destroy them even as Elias did under Moses Law Christ distinguished the spirit of Elias from his own Spirit and taught them a lesson of greater sweetness and consigned this truth to all Ages of the Church that such severity is not consistent with the meekness which Christ by his example and Sermons hath made a precept Evangelicall At most it was but a judiciall Law and no more of Argument to make it necessary to us then the Mosaicall precepts of putting Adulterers to death and trying the accused persons by the waters of jealousie 20. And thus in these two Instances I have given account what is to be done in Toleration of diversity of Opinions The result of which is principally this Let the Prince and the Secular Power have a care the Commonwealth be safe For whether such or such a Sect of Christians be to be permitted is a Question rather politicall then religious for as for the concernments of Religion these Instances have furnished us with sufficient to determine us in our duties as to that particular and by one of these all particulars may be judged 21. And now it were a strange inhumanity to permit Jews in a Commonwealth whose interest is served by their inhabitation and yet upon equal grounds of State and policy not to permit differing Sects of Christians For although possibly there is more danger mens perswasions should be altered in a commixture of divers Sects of Christians yet there is not so much danger when they are changed from Christian to Christian as if they be turned from Christian to Jew or Moor as many are daily in Spain and Portugall 22. And this is not to be excused by saying the Church hath no power over them qui forâ—s sunt as Jews are For it is true the Church in the capacity of spiritual regiments hath nothing to doe with them because they are not her Diocese yet the Prince hath to doe with them when they are subjects of his regiment They may not be Excommunicate any more then a stone may be killed because they are not of the Christian Communion but they â—re living persons parts of the Commonwealth infinitely deceived in their Religion and very dangerous if they offer to perswade men to their Opinions and are the greatest enemies of Christ whose honour and the interest of whose service a Christian Prince is bound with all his power to maintain And when the question is of punishing disagreeing persons with death the Church hath equally nothing to doe with them both for she hath nothing to doe with the temporall sword but the Prince whose subjects equally Christians and Jews are hath equal power over their persons for a Christian is no more a Subject then a Jew is the Prince hath upon them both the same power of life and death so that the Jew by being no Christian is not forâ—s or any more an exempt person for his body or his life then the Christian is And yet in all Churches where the Secular power hath temporal reason to tolerate the Jews they are tolerated without any scruple in Religion Which thing is of more consideration because the Jews are direct Blasphemers of the Son of God and Blasphemy by their own Law the Law of Moses is made capital and might with greater reason be inflicted upon them who acknowledge its obligation then urged upon Christians as an Authority enabling Princes to put them to death who are accused of accidental and consecutive Blasphemy and Idolatry respectively which yet they hate and disavow with much zeal and heartiness of perswasion And I cannot yet learn a reason why we shall not be more complying with them who are of the houshold of Faith for at least they are children though they be but rebellious children and if they were not what hath the mother to doe with them any more then with the Jews they are in some relation or habitude of the family for they are consigned with the same Baptism profess the same Faith delivered by the Apostles are erected in the same hope and look for the same glory to be revealed to them at the coming of their common Lord and Saviour to whose service according to their understanding they have vowed themselves And if the disagreeing persons be to be esteemed as Heathens and Publicans yet not worse Have no company with
teaching us But it is at least hugely disputable and not at all certain that any man or society of men can be infallible that we may put our trust in Saints in certain extraordinary Images or burn Incense and offer consumptive oblations to the Virgin Mary or make Vows to persons of whose state or place or capacities or condition we have no certain revelation We are sure we do well when in the holy Communion we worship God and Jesus Christ our Saviour but they who also worship what seems to be Bread are put to strange shifts to make themselves believe it to be lawful It is certainly lawful to believe what we see and feel but it is an unnatural thing upon pretence of faith to disbelieve our eyes when our sense and our faith can better be reconciled as it is in the question of the Real Presence as it is taught by the Church of England So that unless you mean to prefer a danger before safety temptation to unholiness before a severe and a holy Religion Unless you mean to lose the benefit of your Prayers by praying what you perceive not and the benefit of the Sacrament in great degrees by falling from Christ's institution and taking half instead of all Unless you desire to provoke God to jealousie by Images and Man to jealousie in professing a Religion in which you may in many cases have leave to forfeit your faith and lawful trust Unless you will still continue to give scandal to those good people with whom you have lived in a common Religion and weaken the hearts of God's afflicted ones Unless you will chuse a Catechism without the Second Commandment and a Faith that grows bigger or less as men please and a Hope that in many degrees relies on men and vain confidences and a Charity that damns all the World but your selves Unless you will do all this that is suffer an abuse in your Prayers in the Sacrament in the Commandments in Faith in Hope in Charity in the Communion of Saints and your duty to your Supreme you must return to the bosom of your Mother the Church of England from whence you have fallen rather weakly than maliciously and I doubt not but you will find the Comfort of it all your Life and in the Day of your Death and in the Day of Judgment If you will not yet I have freed mine own Soul and done an act of Duty and Charity which at least you are bound to take kindly if you will not entertain it obediently Now let me add this That although most of these Objections are such things which are the open and avowed doctrines or practices of your Church and need not to be proved as being either notorious or confessed yet if any of your Guides shall seem to question any thing of it I will bind my self to verifie it to a tittle and in that too which I intend them that is so as to be an Objection obliging you to return under the pain of folly or heresie or disobedience according to the subject matter And though I have propounded these things now to your consideration yet if it be desired I shall represent them to your eye so that even your self shall be able to give sentence in the behalf of Truth In the mean time give me leave to tell you of how much folly you are guilty in being moved by such mock-arguments as your men use when they meet with women and tender consciences and weaker understandings The first is Where was your Church before Luther Now if you had called upon them to speak something against your Religion from Scripture or right Reason or Universal Tradition you had been secure as a Tortoise in her shell a Cart pressed with Sheaves could not have oppressed your cause or person though you had confessed you understood nothing of the mysteries of succession doctrinal or personal For if we can make it appear that our Religion was that which Christ and his Apostles taught let the Truth suffer what Eclipses or prejudices can be supposed let it be hid like the holy fire in the captivity yet what Christ and his Apostles taught us is eternally true and shall by some means or other be conveyed to us even the enemies of Truth have been conservators of that Truth by which we can confute their Errors But if you still ask where it was before Luther I answer it was there where it was after even in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and I know no warrant for any other Religion And if you will expect I should shew any Society of men who professed all the doctrines which are now expressed in the Confession of the Church of England I shall tell you it is unreasonable because some of our Truths are now brought into our publick Confessions that they might be oppos'd against your Errors before the occasion of which there was no need of any such Confessions till you made many things necessary to be professed which are not lawful to be believed For if we believe your superinduc'd follies we shall do unreasonably unconscionably and wickedly but the questions themselves are so useless abstracting from the accidental necessity which your follies have brought upon us that it had been happy if we had never heard of them more than the Saints and Martyrs did in the first Ages of the Church But because your Clergy have invaded the liberty of the Church and multiplied the dangers of damnation and pretend new necessities and have introduc'd new Articles and affright the simple upon new pretensions and slight the very institution and the Commands of Christ and of the Apostles and invent new Sacramentals constituting Ceremonies of their own head and promise grace along with the use of them as if they were not Ministers but Lords of the Spirit and teach for doctrines the commandments of men and make void the Commandment of God by their tradition and have made a strange Body of Divinity therefore it is necessary that we should immure our Faith by the refusal of such vain and superstitious dreams but our Faith was completed at first it is no other than that which was delivered to the Saints and can be no more for ever So that it is a foolish demand to require that we should shew before Luther a Systeme of Articles declaring our sence in these questions It was long before they were questions at all and when they were made questions they remained so a long time and when by their several pieces they were determined this part of the Church was oppressed with a violent power and when God gave opportunity then the yoke was broken and this is the whole progress of this affair But if you will still insist upon it then let the matter be put into equal balances and let them shew any Church whose Confession of Faith was such as was obtruded upon you at Trent and if your Religion be Pius Quartus his Creed
n. 22. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. Church Neither it alone nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by substitution ibid. No Church-presidency ever given to the Laiety 114 § 36. Whether secular power can give prohibitions against the power of the Church 122. § 36. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops 148 § 45. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after secular imployments 157 § 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends 158 § 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it gradu impedimenti 159 § 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold-cares as secular imployment 160 § 49. Lay-Elders never had authority in the Church 165 § 51. What the Church signifieth 382 383. Wicked men are not true members of it 383. In what sense Saint Paul calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth 386 387. What truth that is of which the Church is the pillar 387. Whether the representative Church be infallible 389. The word Church is never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Of the meaning of that of our Lord Tell the Church 389. Of the notes of the Church 402. Scripture is more credible then the Church 407. Some rites which the Apostles injoyned the Christian Church does not now practise 430. The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to salvation 436. The Roman is not the Mother of all Churches 449. The authority of the Church of Rome they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. When in the question between the Church and the Scripture they distinguish between authority quoad nos in se it salves not the difficulty 451. Eckius's pitiful Argument to prove the authority of the Church to be above the Scripture 451. The Church is such a Judge of Controversies that they must all be decided before you can find him 1012. Success and worldly prosperity no note of the true Church 1018. Clemens Alexandrinus His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. In Vossius his opinion he understood not original sin 759 n. 20. Clergy The word Church never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Clinicks Objections against the repentance of Clinicks 678 n. 57. and 677 n. 56. and 679 n. 64. Heathens newly baptized if they die immediately need no other repentance ibid. The objection concerning the Thief on the Cross answered 681 n. 65. Testimonies of the Ancients against the repentance of Clinicks 682 n. 66. The way of treating sinners who repent not till their death-bed 695 n. 25. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of Clinicks 696 n. 29. What hopes penitent Clinicks have according to the opinion of the Fathers of the Church 696 697 n. 30. The manner how the ancient Church treated penitent Clinicks 699 n. 5. The particular acts and parts of repentance that are fittest for a dying man 700 n. 32. The practice of the Primitive Fathers about penitent Clinicks 804. The repentance of Clinicks 853 n. 96. Colossians Chap. 2.18 explained 781 n. 31. Commandment Of the difference between S. Augustine and S. Hierome in the proposition about the possibility of keeping God's Commandments 579 n. 30. Communicate To doe it in act or desire are not terms opposite but subordinate 190 § 3. Commutations When they were first set up 292. Amends may be made for some sins by a commutation of duties 648 68. Comparative Instances in Texts of Scripture wherein comparative and restrained negatives are set down in an absolute form 229 § 10. Concupiscence It is not a mortal sin till it proceeds farther 776 n. 20. It is an evil but not a sin 734 n. 84. It is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin 752 n. 11. Natural inclinations are but sins of infirmity 789 n. 50. Where it is not consented to it is no sin 752 n. 11. and 765 n. 30. and 767 n. 39. and 898 907 909 911 912 876. The natural inclination to evil that is in every man is not sin 766 n. 32. It is not original sin 911. The inconstancy of S. Augustine about it 913. Confession According to the Roman doctrine Confession does not restrain sin and quiets not the Conscience 315 § 2. c. 2. A right confesfession according to the Roman Doctrine is not possible 316 § 3. The seal of Confession they will not suffer to be broken if it be to save the life of the Prince or the whole State 343 c. 3. § 2. The Roman doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Nectarius abolished the custome of having sins published in the Church 474 488 492. That the seal of confession is broken among them upon divers great occasions 475. Whether to confess all our great sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation 477. Of the harmony of Confession made by the Reformed 899. Nothing of auricular confession to a Priest in Scripture 479. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for auricular confession 491. Auricular confession made an instrument to carry on unlawful plots 488 489. Father Arnold Confessor to Lewis XIII of France did cause the King in private confession to take such an oath as did in a manner depose him 489. Auricular confession leaves behind it an eternal scruple upon the Conscience 489. Auricular confession is an instance of the Romanists teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 477. Confession is a necessary act of repentance 830 n. 34. It is due to God 831. Why we are to confess sins to God who knoweth them before 832 n. 37. What properly is meant by it ibid. Auricular confession whence it descended 833 41. Confession to a Priest is no part of contrition ibid. The benefit of confessing to a Priest 834. Rules concerning the practice of confession 854 n. 100. Shame should not hinder confession 855 n. 104. A rule to be observed by the Minister that receiveth confession 856 n. 105. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister 857 n. 109. Confession in preparation to the Sacrament 857 n. 110. Confirmation It was not to expire with the age of the Apostles 53 § 8. Photius was the first that gave the power of Confirmation to Presbyters 109 § 33. The words Signator consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifie Baptismal unction 110 § 33. The great benefit and need of the rite of Confirmation in the Church Ep. ded to that Treatise pag. 2. The Latine Church would have sold the title of Confirmation to the Greek but they would not buy it Ep. ded pag. 5. The Papists hold Confirmation to be a Sacrament and yet not necessary 3. b. That it is a Divine Ordinance 3 4. b. Of the necessity of
second or third remove if here Christ begins to change the particulars of his discourse it can primarily relate to nothing but his death upon the Cross at which time he gave his flesh for the life of the world and so giving it it became meat the receiving this gift was a receiving of life for it was given for the life of the world The manner of receiving it is by faith and hearing the word of God submitting our understanding the digesting this meat is imitating the life of Christ conforming to his doctrine and example and as the Sacraments are instruments or acts of this manducation so they come under this discourse and no otherwise 18. But to return This very allegory of the word of God to be called meat and particularly Manna which in this Chapter Christ particularly alludes to is not unusual in the old Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses said unto them This is the word which the Lord hath given us to eat This is the word which the Lord hath ordained you see what is the food of the soul even the eternal Word of God c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Word of God the most honourable and eldest of things is called Mana and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The soul is nourished by the Word qui pastus pulcherrimus est animorum 19. And therefore now I will resume those testimonies of Clemens Alexandrinus of Eusebius S. Basil S. Hierome and S. Bernard which I wav'd before all agreeing upon this exposition that the word of God Christs doctrine is the flesh he speaks of and the receiving it and practising it are the eating his flesh for this sence is the literal and proper and S. Hierom is express to affirm that the other exposition is mystical and that this is the more true and proper and therefore the saying of Bellarmine that they only give the mystical sence is one of his confident sayings without reason or pretence of proof and whereas he adds that they do not deny that these words are also understood literally of the Sacrament I answer it is sufficient that they agree in this sence and the other Fathers do so expound it with an exclusion to the natural sence of eating Christ in the Sacrament particularly this appears in the testimonies of Origen and Saint Ambrose above quoted to which I add the words of Eusebius in the third book of his Theologia Ecclesiastica expounding the 63. verse of the sixth of Saint John he brings in Christ speaking thus Think not that I speak of this flesh which I bear and do not imagine that I appoint you to drink this sensible and corporal blood But know ye that the words which I have spoken are spirit and life Nothing can be fuller to exclude their interpretation and to affirm ours though to do so be not usual unless they were to expound Scripture in opposition to an adversary and to require such hard conditions in the sayings of men that when they speak against Titius they shall be concluded not to speak against Cajus if they do not clap their contrary negative to their positive affirmative though Titius and Cajus be against one another in the cause is a device to escape rather than to intend truth and reality in the discourses of men I conclude It is notorious and evident what Erasmus notes upon this place Hunc locum veteres interpretantur de doctrinâ coelesti sic enim dicit panem suum ut frequenter dixit sermonem suum The Ancient Fathers expound this place of the heavenly doctrine so he calls the bread his own as he said often the word to be his And if the concurrent testimonies of Origen Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus S. Basil Athanasius Eusebius S. Hierom S. Ambrose S. Austin Theophylact and S. Bernard are a good security for the sence of a place of Scripture we have read their evidence and may proceed to sentence 20. But it was impossible but these words falling upon the allegory of bread and drink and signifying the receiving Christ crucified and communicating with his passion in all the wayes of Faith and Sacrament should also meet with as allegorical expounders and for the likeness of expression be referr'd to sacramental manducation And yet I said this cannot at all infer Transubstantiation though sacramental manducation were only and principally intended For if it had been spoken of the Sacrament the words had been verified in the spiritual sumption of it for as Christ is eaten by faith out of the Sacrament so is he also in the Sacrament as he is real and spiritual meat to the worthy Hearer so is he to the worthy Communicant as Christ's flesh is life to all that obey him so to all that obediently remember him so Christ's flesh is meat indeed however it be taken if it be taken spiritually but not however it be taken if it be taken carnally He is nutritive in all the wayes of spiritual manducation but not in all the wayes of natural eating by their own confession nor in any by ours And therefore it is a vain confidence to run away with the conclusion if they should gain one of the premises But the truth is this It is neither properly spoken of the Sacrament neither if it were would it prove any thing of Transubstantiation 21. I will not be alone in my assertion though the reasonableness and evidence would bear me out Saint Austin saith the same Spiritualiter intelligite quod loquutus sum vobis Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis Sacramentum aliquod commendavi vobis spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit nos That which I have spoken is to be understood spiritually ye are not to eat that body which ye see I have commended a Sacrament to you which being understood spiritually will give you life where besides that he gives testimony to the main question on our behalf he also makes sacramentally and spiritually to be all one And again Vt quia jam similitudinem mortis ejus in baptismo accipimus similitudinem quoque sanguinis carnis sumamus ita ut veritas non desit in sacramento ridiculum nullum fiat in Paganis quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus That as we receive the similitude of his Death in Baptism so we may also receive the likeness of his Flesh and Blood so that neither truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor the Pagans ridiculously affirm that we should drink the blood of the crucified Man Nothing could be spoken more plain in this Question We receive Christ's body in the Eucharist as we are baptized into his death that is by figure and likeness In the Sacrament there is a verity or truth of Christ's body and yet no drinking of blood or eating of flesh so as the Heathen may calumniate us by saying we do that which the men of Capernaum thought Christ taught
them they should So that though these words were spoken of Sacramental manducation as sometimes it is expounded yet there is reality enough in the spiritual sumption to verifie these words of Christ without a thought of any bodily eating his flesh And that we may not think this Doctrine dropt from S. Austin by chance he again affirms dogmatically Qui discordat à Christo nec carnem ejus manducat nec sanguinem bibit etiamsi tantae rei sacramentum ad judicium suae praesumptionis quotidiè indifferenter accipiat He that disagrees from Christ that is disobeys him neither eats his flesh nor drinks his blood although to his condemnation he every day receive the Sacrament of so great a thing The consequent of which words is plainly this that there is no eating of Christ's flesh or drinking his blood but by a moral instrument faith and subordination to Christ the sacramental external eating alone being no eating of Christ's flesh but the Symbols and Sacrament of it 22. Lastly Suppose these words of Christ The bread which I shall give is my flesh were spoken literally of the Sacrament what he promised he would give he perform'd and what was here expressed in the future tense was in his time true in the present tense and therefore is alwayes presently true after consecration It follows that in the Sacrament this is true Panis est corpus Christi The bread is the body of Christ. Now I demand whether this Proposition will be owned It follows inevitably from this Doctrine If these words be spoken of the Sacrament But it is disavowed by the Princes of the party against us Hoc tamen est impossibile quòd panis sit corpus Christi It is impossible that the bread should be Christ's body saith the Gloss of Gratian and Bellarmine sayes it cannot be a true Proposition In quâ subjectum supponit proâ—pane praedicatum autem pro corpore Christi Panis enim corpus Domini res diversissimae sunt The thing that these men dread is lest it be called bread and Christ's body too as we affirm it unanimously to be and as this Argument upon their own grounds evinces it Now then how can they serve both ends I cannot understand If they will have the bread or the meat which Christ promis'd to give to be his flesh then so it came to pass and then it is bread and flesh too If it did not so come to pass and that it is impossible that bread should be Christ's flesh then when Christ said the bread which he would give should be his flesh he was not to be understood properly of the Sacrament But either figuratively in the Sacrament or in the Sacrament not at all either of which will serve the end of truth in this Question But of this hereafter By this time I hope I may conclude that Transubstantiation is not taught by our Blessed Lord in the sixth Chapter of Saint John Johannes de tertiâ Eucharisticâ coenâ nihil quidem scribit eò quod caeteri tres Evangelistae ante illum eam plenè descripsissent They are the words of Stapleton and are good evidence against them SECT IV. Of the Words of Institution 1. MULTA mala oportet interpretari eos qui unum non rectè intelligere volunt said Irenaeus they must needs speak many false things who will not rightly understand one The words of consecration are Praecipuum fundamentum totius controversiae atque adeò totius hujus altissimi mysterii said Bellarmine the greatest ground of the whole Question and by adhering to the letter the Mystery is lost and the whole party wanders in eternal intricacies and inextricable Riddles which because themselves cannot untie they torment their sense and their reason and many places of Scripture whilst they pertinaciously stick to the impossible letter and refuse the spirit of these words The Words of Institution are these S. Matth. 26.26 Jesus took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins S. Luke 22.19 And he took bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave to them saying This is my body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me Likewise also the cup after Supper saying This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you S. Mark 14.22 Jesus took bread and blessed it and gave to them and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them and they all drank of it and he said to them This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many 1 Cor. 11.23 The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread And when he had given thanks he brake it and said Take eat This is my body which is broken for you this do in remembrance of me After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the New Testament in my blood This do ye as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me 2. These words contain the Institution and are wholly called the words of Consecration in the Latine Church Concerning which the consideration is material Out of these words the Latine Church separates Hoc est corpum meum This is my body and say that these words pronounced by the Priest with due intention do effect this change of the bread into Christs body which change they call Transubstantiation But if these words do not effect any such change then it may be Christs body before the words and these may only declare what is already done by the prayers of the Holy man or else it may become Christ's body only in the use and manducation and as it will be uncertain when the change is so also it cannot be known what it is If it be Christ's body before those words then the literal sence of these words will prove nothing it is so as it will be before these words and made so by other words which refer wholly to use and then the praecipuum fundamentum the pillar and ground of Tranbsubstantiation is supplanted And if it be only after the words and not effected by the words it will be Christ's body only in the reception Now concerning this I have these things to say 3. First By what Argument can it be proved that these words Take and eat are not as effective of the change as Hoc est corpus meum This is my body If they be then the taking and eating does consecrate and it is not Christ's body till it be taken and eaten and then when that 's done it is so no more and besides that reservation circumgestation adoration
which Pope John the Eighth severely reprov'd them and commanded them to do so no more but being better inform'd he wrote a letter to their Prince Sfentoputero in which he affirms that it is not contrary to faith and found doctrine to say Mass and other prayers in the Slavonian tongue and adds this reason because he that Hebrew Greek and Latin hath made the others also for his glory and this also he confirms with the authority of S. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians and some other Scriptures only he commanded for the decorum of the business the Gospel should first be said in Latin and then in the Slavonian tongue But just two hundred years after this the Tables were turned and though formerly these things were permitted yet so were many things in the Primitive Church but upon better examination they have been corrected And therefore P. Gregory the seventh wrote to Vratislaus of Bohemia that he could not permit the celebration of the divine offices in the Slavonian tongue and he commanded the Prince to oppose the people herein with all his forces Here the world was strangely altered and yet S. Paul's Epistle was not condemned of heresie and no Council had decreed that all vulgar languages were prophane and no reason can yet be imagined why the change was made unless it were to separate the Priest from the people by a wall of Latin and to nurse stupendious ignorance in them by not permitting to them learning enough to understand their publick prayers in which every man was greatly concerned Neither may this be called a slight matter for besides that Gregory the seventh thought it so considerable that it was a just cause of a war or persecution for he commanded the Prince of Bohemia to oppose the people in it with all his forces besides this I say to pray to God with the understanding is much better than praying with the tongue that alone can be a good prayer this alone can never and then the loss of all those advantages which are in prayers truly understood the excellency of devotion the passion of desires the ascent of the mind to God the adherence to and acts of confidence in him the intellectual conversation with God most agreeable to a rational being the melting affections the pulses of the heart to and from God to and from our selves the promoting and exercising of our hopes all these and very many more which can never be intire but in the prayers and devotions of the heart and can never be in any degree but in the same in which the prayers are acts of love and wisdom of the will and the understanding will be lost to the greatest part of the Catholick Church if the mouth be set open and the soul be gag'd so that it shall be the word of the mouth but not the word of the mind All these things being added to what was said in this article by the Disswasive will more than make it clear that in this article the consequents of which are very great the Church of Rome hath causelesly troubled Christendom and innovated against the Primitive Church and against her own ancient doctrines and practices and even against the Apostle But they care for none of these things Some of their own Bigots profess the thing in the very worst of all these expressions for so Reynolds and Gifford in their Calvino Turcismus complain that such horrid and stupendious evils have followed the translation of Scriptures into vulgar languages that they are of force enough ad istas translationes penitus supprimendas etiamsi Divina vel Apostolica authoritate niterentur Although they did rely upon the authority Apostolical or Divine yet they ought to be taken away So that it is to no purpose to urge Scripture or any argument in the world against the Roman Church in this article for if God himself command it to be translated yet it is not sufficient and therefore these men must be left to their own way of understanding for beyond the law of God we have no argument I will only remind them that it is a curse which God threatens to his rebellious people I will speak to this people with men of another tongue and by strange lips and they shall not understand This is the curse which the Church of Rome contends earnestly for in behalf of their people SECT VI. Of the Worship of Images THAT society of Christians will not easily be reformed that think themselves oblig'd to dispute for the worship of Images the prohibition of which was so great a part of the Mosaick Religion and is so infinitely against the nature and spirituality of the Christian a thing which every understanding can see condemned in the Decalogue and no man can excuse but witty persons that can be bound by no words which they can interpret to a sence contradictory to the design of the common a thing for the hating of and abstaining from which the Jews were so remark'd by all the world and by which as by a distinctive cognizance they were separated from all other Nations and which with perfect resolution they keep to this very day and for the not observing of which they are intolerably scandaliz'd at those societies of Christians who without any necessity in the thing without any pretence of any Law of God for no good and for no wise end and not without infinite danger at least of idolatry retain a worship and veneration to some stocks and stones Such men as these are too hard for all laws and for all arguments so certain it is that faith is an obedience of the will in a conviction of the understanding that if in the will and interests of men there be a perverseness and a non-compliance and that it is not bent by prudent and wise â—lexures and obedience to God and the plain words of God in Scripture nothing can ever prevail neither David nor his Sling nor all the worthies of his army In this question I have said enough in the Disswasive and also in the Ductor Dubitantium but to the arguments and fulness of the perswasion they neither have nor can they say any thing that is material but according to their usual method like flies they search up and down and light upon any place which they suppose to be sore or would make their proselytes believe so I shall therefore first vindicate those few quotations which the Epistles of his brethren except against for there are many and those most pregnant which they take no notice of as bearing in them too clear a conviction 2. I shall answer such testimonies which some of them steal out of Bellarmine and which they esteem as absolutely their best And 3. I shall add something in confirmation of that truth of God which I here have undertaken to defend First for the questioned quotations against the worship of Images S. Cyril was nam'd in the Disswasive as denying that the Christians
did give veneration and worship to the Image even of the cross it self but no words of S. Cyril were quoted for the denial is not in express words but in plain and direct argument for being by Julian charg'd with worshipping the cross S. Cyril in behalf of the Christians takes notice of their using the cross in a religious memory of all good things to which by the cross of Christ we are ingag'd that is he owns all that they did and therefore taking no notice of any thing of worship and making no answer to that part of the objection it is certain that the Christians did not do it or that he could not justifie them in so doing But because I quoted no words of S. Cyril I now shall take notice of some words of his which do most abundantly clear this particular by a general rule Only the Divine Nature is capable of adoration and the Scripture hath given adoration to no nature but to that of God alone that and that alone ought to be worshipped But to give yet a little more light to this particular it may be noted that before S. Cyrils time this had been objected by the Pagans particularly by Caecilius to which Minutius answers by directly denying it and saying that the Pagans did rather worship crosses that is the woodden parts of their Gods The Christians indeed were by Tertullian called Religiosi crucis because they had it in thankful use and memory and us'd it frequently in a symbolical confession of their not being asham'd but of their glorying in the real cross of Christ But they never worshipped the material cross or the figure of it as appears by S. Cyrils owning all the objections excepting this only of which he neither confessed the fact nor offered any justification of it when it was objected but professed a doctrine with which such practice was inconsistent And the like is to be said of some other of the Fathers who speak with great affections and veneration of the cross meaning to exalt the passion of Christ and in the sence of S. Paul to glory in the cross of Christ not meaning the material cross much less the image of it which we blame in the Church of Rome And this very sence we have expressed in S. Ambrose Sapiens Helena egit quae crucem in capite regum levavit ut Christi Crux in Regibus adoretur The figure of the material cross was by Helena plac'd upon the heads of Kings that the cross of Christ in Kings might be ador'd How so He answers Non insolentia ista sed pietas est cum defertur sacrae redemptioni It is to the holy redemption not to the cross materially taken this were insolent but the other is piety In the same manner also S. Chrysostom is by the Roman Doctors and particularly by Gretser and E. W. urg'd for the worshipping Christs cross But the book de cruce latrone whence the words are cited Gretser and Possevine suspect it to be a spurious issue of some unknown person It wants a Father and sometimes it goes to S. Austin and is crouded into his Sermons de Tempore But I shall not trouble my discourse any farther with such counterfeit ware What S. Chrysostoms doctrine was in the matter of Images is plain enough in his indubitate works as is and shall be remark'd in their several places The famous testimony of Epiphanius against the very use of Images in Churches being urg'd in the Disswasive as an irrefragable argument that the Roman doctrine is not Primitive or Catholick the contra-scribers say nothing but that when S. Hierom translated that Epistle of S. Epiphanius it appears not that this story was in that Epistle that S. Hierom translated which is a great argument that that story was foisted into that Epistle after S. Hieroms time A likely matter but spoken upon slight grounds It appears not saith the Objector that this story was in it then To whom does it not appear To Bellarmine indeed it did not nor to this Objector who writes after him Alan Cope denied that Epiphanius ever wrote any such Epistle at all or that S. Hierom ever translated any such but Bellarmine being asham'd of such unreasonable boldness found out this more gentle answer which here we have from our Objector well but now the case is thus that this story was put into the Epistle by some Iconoclast is vehemently suspected by Bellarmine and Baronius But this Epistle vehemently burns their fingers and the live-coal sticks close to them and they can never shake it off For 1. who should add this story to this Epistle not any of the reformed Doctors for before Luthers time many ages this Epistle with this story was known and confessed and quoted in the Manuscript copies of divers Nations 2. This Epistle was quoted and set down as now it is with this story by Charles the great above DCCC years ago 3. And a little after by the Fathers in the Council of Paris only they call the Author John Bishop of C. P. instead of Jerusalem 4. Sirmondus the Jesuit cites this Epistle as the genuine work of Epiphanius 5. Marianus Victor and Dionysius Petavius a Jesuit of great and deserved same for learning in their Editions of Epiphanius have published this whole Epistle and have made no note given no censure upon this story 6. Before them Thomas Waldensis and since him Alphonsus à Castro acknowledge this whole Epistle as the proper issue of Epiphanius 7. Who can be suppos'd to have put in this story The Iconoclasts Not the Greeks because if they had they would have made use of it for their advantage which they never did in any of their disputations against images insomuch that Bellarmine makes advantage of it because they never objected it Not the Latins that wrote against images for though they were against the worship of images yet they were not Iconoclasts Indeed Claudius Taurinensis was but he could not put this story in for before his time it was in as appears in the book of Charles the great before quoted These things put together are more than sufficient to prove that this story was written by Epiphanius and the whole Epistle was translated by S. Hierome as himself testifies But after all this if there was any foul play in this whole affair the cosenage lies on the other side for some or other have destroyed the Greek original of Epiphanius and only the Latin copies remain and in all of them of Epiphanius's works this story still remains But how the Greek came to be lost though it be uncertain yet we have great cause to suspect the Greeks to be the Authors of the loss And the cause of this suspicion is the command made by the Bishops in the seventh Council that all writings against images should be brought in to the Bishop of C. P. there to be laid up with the books of
but because the Apostle speaking of the Foundation in which Baptism is and is reckoned one of the principal parts in the Foundation there needed no Absolution but Baptismal for they and we believing one Baptism for the Remission of Sins this is all the Absolution that can be at first and in the Foundation The other was secunda post naufragium tabula it came in after when men had made a shipwrack of their good conscience and were as S. Peter says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forgetful of the former cleansing and purification and washing of their old sins Secondly It cannot be meant of Ordination and this is also evident 1. Because the Apostle says he would thence-forth leave to speak of the Foundation and go on to perfection that is to higher Mysteries Now in Rituals of which he speaks there is none higher than Ordination 2. The Apostle saying he would speak no more of Imposition of Hands goes presently to discourse of the mysteriousness of the Evangelical Priesthood and the honour of that vocation by which it is evident he spake nothing of Ordination in the Catechism or Narrative of Fundamentals 3. This also appears from the context not only because Laying on of hands is immediately set after Baptism but also because in the very next words of his Discourse he does enumerate and apportion to Baptism and Confirmation their proper and proportioned effects to Baptism illumination according to the perpetual style of the Church of God calling Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an enlightning and to Confirmation he reckons tasting the Heavenly gift and being made partakers of the Holy Ghost by the thing signified declaring the Sign and by the mystery the Rite Upon these words S. Chrysostom discoursing says That all these are Fundamental Articles that i◠that we ought to Repent from dead works to be Baptized into the Faith of Christ and be made worthy of the gift of the Spirit who is given by Imposition of Hands and we are to be taught the mysteries of the Resurrection and Eternal Judgment This Catechism says he is perfect so that if any man have Faith in God and being baptized is also confirmed and so tastes the Heavenly gift and partakes of the Holy Ghost and by hope of the Resurrection tastes of the good things of the World to come if he falls away from this state and turns Apostate from this whole Dispensation digging down and turning up these Foundations he shall never be built again he can never be Baptized again and never be Confirmed any more God will not begin again and go over with him again he cannot be made a Christian twice If he remains upon these Foundations though he sins he may be renewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Repentance and by a Resuscitation of the Spirit if he have not wholly quenched him but if he renounces the whole Covenant disown and cancel these Foundations he is desperate he can never be renewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Title and Oeconomy of Repentance This is the full explication of this excellent place and any other ways it cannot reasonably be explicated but therefore into this place any notice of Ordination cannot come no Sence no Mystery can be made of it or drawn from it but by the interposition of Confirmation the whole context is clear rational and intelligible This then is that Imposition of hands of which the Apostle speaks Vnus hic locus abunde testatur c. saith Calvin This one place doth abundantly witness that the original of this Rite or Ceremony was from the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostom for by this Rite of Imposition of hands they receiv'd the Holy Ghost Fo◠though the Spirit of God was given extra-regularly and at all times as God was pleas'd to do great things yet this Imposition of hands was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this was the Ministery of the Spirit For so we receive Christ when we hear and obey his word we eat Christ by Faith and we live by his Spirit and yet the Blessed Eucharist is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ministery of the Body and Blood of Christ. Now as the Lord's Supper is appointed ritually to convey Christ's Body and Bloud to us so is Confirmation ordain'd ritually to give unto us the Spirit of God And though by accident and by the overflowings of the Spirit it may come to pass that a man does receive perfective graces alone and without Ministeries external yet such a man without a miracle is not a perfect Christian ex statuum vitae dispositione but in the ordinary ways and appointment of God and until he receive this Imposition of hands and be Confirmed is to be accounted an imperfect Christian. But of this afterwards I shall observe one thing more out of this testimony of S. Paul He calls it the Doctrine of Baptisms and Laying on of hands by which it does not only appear to be a lasting ministery because no part of the Christian Doctrine could change or be abolished but hence also it appears to be of Divine institution For if it were not S. Paul had beed guilty of that which our Blessed Saviour reproves in the Scribes and Pharisees and should have taught for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. Which because it cannot be suppos'd it must follow that this Doctrine of Confirmation or Imposition of hands is Apostolical and Divine The Argument is clear and not easie to be reprov'd SECT II. The Rite of Confirmation is a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministery YEA but what is this to us It belong'd to the days of wonder and extraordinary The Holy Ghost breath'd upon the Apostles and Apostolical men but then he breath'd his last recedente gratiâ recessit disciplina when the Grace departed we had no further use of the Ceremony In answer to this I shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by divers particulars evince plainly that this Ministery of Confirmation was not temporary and relative only to the Acts of the Apostles but was to descend to the Church for ever This indeed is done already in the preceding Section in which it is clearly manifested that Christ himself made the Baptism of the Spirit to be necessary to the Church He declar'd the fruits of this Baptism and did particularly relate it to the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Church at and after that glorious Pentecost He sanctified it and commended it by his Example just as in order to Baptism he sanctified the Floud Jordan and all other waters to the mystical washing away of sin viz. by his great Example and fulfilling this righteousness also This Doctrine the Apostles first found in their own persons and Experience and practised to all their Converts after Baptism by a solemn and external Rite and all this passed into an Evangelical Doctrine the whole mystery being signified by the external Rite in the words of the Apostle as before it was by Christ expressing
only the internal so that there needs no more strength to this Argument But that there may be wanting no moments to this truth which the Holy Scripture affords I shall add more weight to it And 1. The Perpetuity of this Holy Rite appears because this great Gift of the Holy Ghost was promised to abide with the Church for ever And when the Jews heard the Apostles speak with Tongues at the first and miraculous descent of the Spirit in Pentecost to take off the strangeness of the wonder and the envy of the power S. Peter at that very time tells them plainly Repent and be Baptized every one of you and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the meanest person amongst you all but shall receive this great thing which ye observe us to have received and not only you but your Children too not your Children of this Generation only sed Natinatorum qui nascentur ab illis but your Children for ever For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are afar off even to as many as the Lord our God shall call Now then let it be considered 1. This gift is by Promise by a promise not made to the Apostles alone but to all to all for ever 2. Consider here at the very first as there is a verbum a word of promise so there is sacramentum too I use the word as I have already premonished in a large fence only and according to the style of the Primitive Church It is a Rite partly Moral partly Ceremonial the first is Prayer and the other is Laying on of the hands and to an effect that is but transient and extraordinary and of a little abode it is not easie to be supposed that such a Solemnity should be appointed I say such a Solemnity that is it is not imaginable that a solemn Rite annexed to a perpetual Promise should be transient and temporary for by the nature of Relatives they must be of equal abode The Promise is of a thing for ever the Ceremony or Rite was annexed to the Promise and therefore this also must be for ever 3. This is attested by S. Paul who reduces this Argument to this Mystery saying In whom after that ye believed signati estis Spiritu Sancto promissionis ye were sealed by that Holy Spirit of promise He spake it to the Ephesians who well understood his meaning by remembring what was done to themselves by the Apostles but a while before who after they had Baptized them did lay their hands upon them and so they were sealed and so they received the Holy Spirit of promise for here the very matter of Fact is the clearest Commentary on S. Paul's words The Spirit which was promised to all Christians they then received when they were consigned or had the Ritual seal of Confirmation by Imposition of hands One thing I shall remark here and that is that this and some other words of Scripture relating to the Sacraments or other Rituals of Religion do principally mean the Internal Grace and our consignation is by a secret power and the work is within but it does not therefore follow that the External Rite is not also intended for the Rite is so wholly for the Mystery and the Outward for the Inward and yet by the Outward God so usually and regularly gives the Inward that as no man is to rely upon the External Ministery as if the opus operatum would do the whole Duty so no man is to neglect the External because the Internal is the more principal The mistake in his particular hath caused great contempt of the Sacraments and Rituals of the Church and is the ground of the Socinian Errors in these Questions But 4. What hinders any man from a quick consent at the first representation of these plain reasonings and authorities Is it because there were extraordinary effects accompanying this Ministration and because now there are not that we will suppose the whole Oeconomy must cease If this be it and indeed this is all that can be supposed in opposition to it it is infinitely vain 1. Because these extraordinary effects did continue even after the death of all the Apostles S. Irenaeus says they did continue even to his time even the greatest instance of Miraculous power Et in fraternitate saepissime propter aliquid necessarium eâ quae est in quoquo loco Vniversâ Ecclesiâ postulante per jejunium supplicationem multam reversus est spiritus c. When God saw it necessary and the Church prayed and fasted much they did miraculous things even of reducing the spirit to a dead man 2. In the days of the Apostles the Holy Spirit did produce miraculous effects but neither always nor at all in all men Are all workers of Miracles do all speak with Tongues do all interpret can all heal No the Spirit bloweth where he listeth and as he listeth he gives Gifts to all but to some after this manner and to some after that 3. These Gifts were not necessary at all times any more than to all persons but the Promise did belong to all and was made to all and was performed to all In the days of the Apostles there was an Effusion of the Spirit of God it ran over it was for themselves and others it wet the very ground they trode upon and made it fruitful but it was not to all in like manner but there was also then and since then a Diffusion of the Spirit tanquam in pleno S. Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost he was full of faith and power The Holy Ghost was given to him to fulfil his Faith principally the working Miracles was but collateral and incident But there is also an Infusion of the Holy Ghost and that is to all and that is for ever The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withall saith the Apostle And therefore if the Grace be given to all there is no reason that the Ritual ministration of that Grace should cease upon pretence that the Spirit is not given extraordinarily 4. These extraordinary Gifts were indeed at first necessary In the beginnings always appear the sensible visions of spiritual things for their sakes who cannot receive the understanding of an incorporeal Nature that if afterward they be not so done they may be believed by those things which were already done said S. Chrysostom in the place before quoted that is these visible appearances were given at first by reason of the imperfection of the state of the Church but the greater Gifts were to abide for ever and therefore it is observable that S. Paul says that the gift of Tongues is one of the least and most useless things a mere Sign and not so much as a Sign to Believers but to Infidels and Unbelievers and before this he greatly prefers the gift of