they please but they cannot tell certainly what is truth But then as for Peter Lombard himself all that I said of him was this that he could not tell he could not determine whether there was any substantial change or no. If in his after discourse he declares that the change is of substances he told it for no other than as a meer opinion if he did let him answer for that not I for that he could not determine it himself expressely said it in the beginning of the eleventh distinction And therefore these Gentlemen would better have consulted with truth and modesty if they had let this alone and not have made such an outcry against a manifest truth Now let me observe one thing which will be of great use in this whole affair and demonstrate the change of this doctrine These three opinions were all held by Catholics Innocent de offic Mis. part 3. cap. 18. and the opinions are recorded not only by Pope Innocentius 3. but in the gloss of the Canon Law it self Cap. cum Martha in gloss â—â—trav de celebr miss For this opinion was not fix'd and setled nor as yet well understood but still disputed as we see in Lombard and Scotus And although they all agreed in this as Salmeron observes of these three opinions as he cites them out of Scotus that the true body of Christ is there because to deny this were against the faith and therefore this was then enough to cause them to be esteemed Catholics because they denied nothing which was then against the faith but all agreed in that yet now the case is otherwise for whereas one of the opinions was that the substance of bread remains and another opinion that the substance of bread is annihilated but is not converted into the body of Christ now both of these opinions are made heresie and the contrary to them which is the third opinion pass'd into an article of faith Vbi supra Quod vero ibi substantia panis non remanet jam etiam ut articulus fidei definitum est conversionis sive transubstantiationis nomen evictum So Salmeron Now in Peter Lombards time if they who believed Christs real presence were good Catholics though they believed no Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation that is did not descend into consideration of the manner why may they not be so now Is there any new revelation now of the manner Or why is the way to Heaven now made narrower than in Lombards time For the Church of England believes according to one of these opinions and therefore is as good a Catholic Church as Rome was then which had not determined the manner Nay if we use to value an article the more by how much the more Ancient it is certainly it is more honourable that we should reform to the Ancient model rather than conform to the new However this is also plainly consequent to this discourse of Salmeron The abettors of those three opinions some of them do deny something that is of faith therefore the faith of the Church of Rome now is not the same it was in the days of Peter Lombard Lastly this also is to be remark'd that to prove any ancient Author to hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation as it is at this day an article of faith at Rome it is not enough to say that Peter Lombard or Durand or Scotus c. did say that where bread was before there is Christs body now for they may say that and more and yet not come home to the present article and therefore E. W. does argue weakly when he denies Lombard to say one thing viz. that he could not define whether there was a substantial change or no which indeed he spake plainly because he brings him saying something as if he were resolv'd the change were substantial which yet he speaks but obscurely And the truth is this question of Transubstantiation is so intricate and involved amongst them seems so contrary to sense and reason and does so much violence to all the powers of the soul that it is no wonder if at first the Doctors could not make any thing distinctly of it However whatever they did make of it certain it is they more agreed with the present Church of England than with the present Church of Rome for we say as they said Christs body is truly there and there is a conversion of the Elements into Christs body for what before the Consecration in all senses was bread is after Consecration in some sense Christs body but they did not all of them say that the substance of bread was destroyed and some of them denied the conversion of the bread into the flesh of Christ which whosoever shall now do will be esteemed no Roman Catholick E. W. pag. 37. And therefore it is a vain procedure to think they have prov'd their doctrine of Transubstantiation out of the Fathers also if the Fathers tell us That bread is chang'd out of his nature into the body of Christ that by holy invocation it is no more common bread that as water in Cana of Galilee was chang'd into wine so in the Evangelist wine is changed into bloud That bread is only bread before the sacramental words but after consecration is made the body of Christ. For though I very much doubt all these things in equal and full measures cannot be prov'd out of the Fathers yet suppose they were yet all this comes not up to the Roman Article of Transubstantiation All those words are true in a very good sense and they are in that sense believ'd in the Church of England but that the bread is no more bread in the natural sense and that it is naturally nothing but the natural body of Christ that the substance of one is passed into the substance of the other this is not affirmed by the Fathers neither can it be inferred from the former propositions if they had been truly alledged and therefore all that is for nothing and must be intended only to cosen and amuse the Reader that understands not all the windings of this labyrinth In the next place I am to give an account of what passed in the Lateran Council upon this article For says E. W. Pag. 37. the doctrine of Transubstantiation was ever believed in the Church though more fully and explicitely declared in the Lateran Council But in the Dissuasive it was said Letter to a friend pag. 18. that it was but pretended to be determined in that Council where many things indeed came then in consultation yet nothing could be openly decreed Nothing says Platina that is says my Adversary nothing concerning the holy land and the aids to be raised for it but for all this there might be a decree concerning Transubstantiation To this I reply that it is as true that nothing was done in this question as that nothing was done in the matter of the Holy War for one was as much
be not so gross and dull as that of the Capharnaites yet it was as false as unreasonable and as impossible And be the occasion of the words what they are or can be yet upon this occasion S. Austin spake words which as well confute the Roman error as the Capharnaitical For it is not only false which the men of Capernaum dreamt of but the antithesis to this is that which S. Austin urges and which comes home to our question I have commended to you a sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you But because S. Austin was the most diligent expounder of this mystery among all the Fathers I will gratifie my Adversary or rather indeed my Unpraejudicate Readers by giving some other very clear and unanswerable evidences of the doctrine of S. Austin agreeing perfectly with that of our Church At this time after manifest token of our liberty hath shin'd in the resurrection of our Lord Iesus Christ De doctr Christ. lib. 3. cap. 9. we are not burdened with the heavy operation of signs but some few instead of many but those most easie to be done and most glorious to be understood and most pure in their observation our Lord himself and the Apostolical discipline hath delivered such is the sacrament of Baptism and the celebration of the body and bloud of our Lord which when every one takes he understands whether they may be referr'd that he may give them veneration not with carnal service but with a spiritual liberty For as to follow the letter and to take the signs for the things signified by them is a servile infirmity so to interpret the signs unprofitably is an evil wandring error But he that understands not what the sign signifies but yet understandeth it to be a sign is not press'd with servitude But it is better to be press'd with unknown signs so they be profitable than by expounding them unprofitably to thrust our necks into the yoke of slavery from which they were brought forth All this S. Austin spake concerning the sacramental signs the bread and the wine in the Eucharist and if by these words he does not intend to affirm that they are the signs signifying Christs body and bloud let who please to undertake it make sense of them for my part I cannot To the same purpose are these other words of his Epist. 23. Christ is in himself once immolated and yet in the sacrament he is sacrificed not only in the solennities of Easter but every day with the people Neither indeed does he lye who being ask'd shall answer that he is sacrificed For if the sacraments have not a similitude of those things of which they are sacraments they were altogether no sacraments but commonly for this similitude they take the names of the things themselves sicut ergo secundum quendam modum c. As therefore after a certain manner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ so the sacrament of faith viz. Baptism is faith Christ is but once immolated or sacrificed in himself but every day in the sacrament that properly this in figure that in substance this in similitude that naturally this sacramentally and spiritually But therefore we call this mystery a sacrifice as we call the Sacrament Christs body viz. by way of similitude or after a certain manner for upon this account the names of the things are imputed to their very figures This is S. Austins sense which indeed he frequently so expresses Now I desire it may be observed that oftentimes when S. Austin speaking of the Eucharist calls it the body and blood of Christ he oftentimes adds by way of explication that he means it in the Sacramental figurative sense but when ever he calls it the figure or the Sacrament of Christs body he never offers to explain that by any words by which he may signifie such a real or natural being of Christs body there as the Church of Rome dreams of but he ought not neither would he have given offence or Umbrage to the Church by any such incurious and loose handling of things if the Church in his age had thought of it otherwise than that it was Christs body in a Sacramental sense Though I have remark'd all that is objected by A. L. yet E. W. is not satisfied with the quotation out of Greg. Naz. not but that he acknowledges it to be right P. 41. Orat. 2. in pascha Jam verò paschlis participes erimus nunc quidem adhuc typicè tametsi apertiùs licet quam in veteri legale siquidem pascha nec enim dicere verebor figurae figurae erat obscurior for he sets down the words in Latin but they conclude nothing against Transubstantiation Why so because though the Paschal was a type of a type a figure of a figure yet in S. Gregories sense Christ concealed under the species of bread may be rightly called a figure of its own self more clearly hereafter to be shewed us in heaven To this pitiful answer the reply is easie S. Gregory clearly enough expresses himself that in the immolation of the Passeover Christ was figured that in the Eucharist he still is figured there more obscurely here more clearly but yet still but typically or in figure nunc quidem adhuc typice here we are partakers of him typically Afterwards we shall see him perfectly meaning in his Fathers Kingdom So that the Saint affirms Christ to be receiv'd by us in the Sacrament after a figurative or typical manner and therefore not after a substantial as that is oppos'd to figurative Now of what is this a type of himself to be more clearly seen in heaven hereafter It is very true it is so for this whole ceremony and figurative ritual receiving of Christs body here does prefigure our more excellent receiving and enjoying him hereafter but then it follows that the very proper substance of Christs body is not here for figure or shadow and substance cannot be the same to say a thing that is present is a figure of it self hereafter is to be said by no man but him that cares not what he says Lib. de Synod Nemo est sui ipsius imago saith S. Hilary and yet if it were possible to be otherwise yet it is a strange figure or sign of a thing that what is invisible should be a sign of what is visible De Euchar. l. 2. c. 15. Sect. est igitur tertia Bellarmine being greatly put to it by the Fathers calling the Sacrament the figure of Christs body says it is in some sense a figure of Christs body on the Cross and here E. W. would affirm out of Naz. that it is a figure of Christs body glorified Now suppose both these dreamers say right then this Sacrament which whether you look forwards or backwards is a figure of Christs body cannot be that body of which so
the infallibility or the authority of the Church but upon an implicite Faith you can no more establish a building than you can number that which is not Besides this an implicite Faith in the Articles of the Church of Rome is not sense it is not Faith at all that is not explicite Faith comes by hearing and not by not hearing and the people of the Roman Church believe one proposition explicitely that is that their Church cannot erre and then indeed they are ready to believe any thing they tell them but as yet they believe nothing but the infallibility of their Guides and to call that Faith which is but a readiness or disposition to have it is like filling a man's belly with the meat he shall eat to morow night an act of Understanding antedated But when it is consider'd in it's own intrinsick nature and meaning it effects this proposition that these things are indeed no objects of that Faith by which we are to be sav'd for it is strange that men having the use of reason should hope to be sav'd by the merit of a Faith that believes nothing that knows nothing that understands nothing but that our Faith is completed in the essential notices of the Evangelical Covenant in the propositions which every Christian man and woman is bound to know and that the other propositions are but arts of Empire and devices of Government or the Scholastick confidence of Opinions something to amuse consciences and such by which the mystick persons may become more knowing and rever'd than their poor Parishioners 3. The Church of Rome determines trifles and inconsiderable propositions and adopts them into the family of faith Of this nature are many things which the Popes determine in their chairs and send them into the world as oracles What a dangerous thing would it be esteem'd to any Roman Catholick if he should dare to question Whether the Consecration of the Bread and Wine be to be done by the prayer of the Priest or by the mystick words of Hoc est corpus meum said ove the Elements For that by the force of those words said with right intention the bread is transsubstantiated Lib. 1. de Sacr. Euchar. cap. 12. Sect. Est igitur and made the body of Christ Ecclesia Catholica magno consensu docet said Bellarmine so it is also in the Council of Florence in the Instruction of the Armenians Lib. 1. Sent. dist 8. so it is taught in the Catechism of the Council of Trent so it is agreed by the Master of the Sentences and his Scholars by Gratian and the Lawyers and so it is determin'd in the law it self Cap. Cum Martha extr de celebratione Missarum And yet this is no certain thing and not so agreeable to the spirituality of the Gospel to suppose such a change made by the saying so many words And therefore although the Church does well in using all the words of Institution at the Consecration for so they are carefully recited in the Liturgies of S. James S. Clement S. Basil S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose the Anaphora of the Syrians Inter Evangelistas quae omittuntur ab uno supplentur ab alio Innocentius de offic in the Universal Canon of the Ethiopians only they do not do this so carefully in the Roman Missal but leave out words very considerable words which S. Luke and S. Paul recite viz. which is broken for you Missae l. 3. c. 17. or which is given for you and to the words of Consecration of the Chalice they add words which Christ did not speak in the Institution and Benediction yet besides this generally the Greek Fathers and divers of the Latine do expressly teach that the Consecration of the elements is made by the prayers of the Church recited by the Bishop or Priest For the Scripture tells us that Christ took the bread he blessed it and brake it and gave it to them saying Take eat It is to be supposed that Christ consecrated it before he gave it to them and yet if he did all the Consecration was effected by his Benediction of it And if as the Romanists contend Christ gave the Sacrament of the Eucharist to the two Disciples at Emmaus it is certain there is no record of any other Consecration but by Christs blessing or praying over the elements It is indeed possible that something more might be done than was set down but nothing less and therefore this Consecration was not done without the Benediction and therefore Hoc est corpus meum alone cannot do it at least there is no warrant for it in Christs Example And when S. Peter in his Ministery did found and establish Churches Orationum ordinem quibus oblata Deo sacrificia consecrantur à S. Petro primò fuisse institutum said Isidore Remigius Hugo de S. Victore and Alphonsus à Castro S. Peter first instituted the order of Prayers by which the sacrifices offer'd to God were consecrated and in the Liturgy of S. James after the words of Institution are recited over the Elements there is a Prayer of Consecration O Lord make this Bread to be the body of thy Christ c. Which words although Bellarmine troubles himself to answer as Cardinal Bessarion did before him yet we shall find his answers to no purpose expounding the prayer to be onely a Confirmation or an Amen to what was done before for if that Consecration was made before that Prayer how comes S. James to call it Bread after Consecration And as weak are his other answers saying The Prayer means that God would make it so to us not in it self which although S. James hath nothing to warrant that Exposition yet it is true upon another account that is because the Bread becomes Christs body onely to us to them who communicate worthily but never to the wicked and it is not Christs body but in the using it and that worthily too And therefore his third Answer which he uses first is certainly the best and that is the answer which Bessarion makes That for ought they know the order of the words is chang'd and that the Prayer should be set before not after the words of Consecration Against which although it is sufficient to oppose that for ought they or we know the order is not chang'd for to this day and always so far as any record remains the Greeks kept the same order of the words and the Greek Fathers had their sentiment and doctrine agreeable to it And as in S. James his Liturgy so in the Missal said to be of S. Clement the same order is observed and after the words of the Institution or Declaration God is invocated to send his Holy Spirit to make the oblation to become the body and bloud of Christ. And in pursuance of this Justin Martyr calls it Apol. 2. lib. 8. cont Celsum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad quorum preces
these Gentlemen will not believe me let them believe their own friends But first let it be consider'd what I said viz. that he maintain'd viz. in disputation that even after consecration the very matter of bread remain'd 2. That by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held 3. That nevertheless it is possible it should be so 4. That it is no contradiction that the matter of bread should remain and yet it be Christs body too 5. That this were the easier way of solving the difficulties That all this is true I have no better argument than his own words which are in his first question of the eleventh distinction in quartum numb 11. n. 15. For indeed the case was very hard with these learned men who being pressed by authority did bite the file and submitted their doctrine but kept their reason to themselves and what some in the Council of Trent observed of Scotus was true also of Durandus and divers other Schoolmen with whom it was usual to deny things with a kind of courtesie And therefore Durandus in the places cited though he disputes well for his opinion yet he says the contrary is modus tenendus de facto But besides that his words are as I understand them plain and clear to manifest his own hearty perswasion yet I shall not desire to be believed upon my own account for fear I be mistaken but that I had reason to say it Summa l. 8. c. 23. p. 448. lit C in Marg. Henriquez shall be my warrant Durandus dist qu. 3. ait esse probabile sed absque assertione c. He saith it is probable but without assertion that in the Eucharist the same matter of bread remains without quantity And a little after he adds out of Cajetan Paludanus and Soto that this opinion of Durandus is erroneous but after the Council of Trent it seems to be heretical And yet he says it was held by Aegidius and Euthymius who had the good luck it seems to live and die before the Council of Trent otherwise they had been in danger of the inquisition for heretical pravity But I shall not trouble my self further in this particular Lib. 3. de Euchar cap. 13. I am fully vindicated by Bellarmine himself who spends a whole Chapter in the confutation of this error of Durandus viz. that the matter of bread remains he endeavours to answer his arguments and gives this censure of him Itaque sententia Durandi haeretica est Therefore the sentence of Durandus is heretical although he be not to be called a heretic because he was ready to acquiesce in the judgment of the Church So Bellarmine who if he say true that Durandus was ready to submit to the judgement of the Church then he does not say true when he says the Church before his time had determined against him but however that I said true of him when I imputed this opinion to him Bellarmine is my witness Thus you see I had reason for what I said and by these instances it appears how hardly and how long the doctrine of Transubstantiation was before it could be swallowed But I remember that Salmeron tells of divers who distrusting of Scripture and reason had rather in this point rely upon the tradition of the Fathers and therefore I descended to take from them this armour in which they trusted And first to ease a more curious inquiry which in a short dissuasive was not convenient I us'd the abbreviature of an adversaries confession For Alphonsus à Castro confess'd that in ancient writers there is seldom any mention made of Transubstantiation Letter p. 21. one of my adversaries says this is not spoken of the thing but of the name of Transubstantiation but if a Castro meant this only of the word he spake weakly when he said that the name or word was seldom mention'd by the Ancients 1. Because it is false that it was seldom mention'd by the Ancients for the word was by the Ancient Fathers never mention'd 2. Because there was not any question of the word where the thing was agreed and therefore as this saying so understood had been false so also if it had been true it would have been impertinent 3. It is but a trifling artifice to confess the name to be unknown and by that means to insinuate that the thing was then under other names It is a secret cosenage of an unweary Reader to bribe him into peace and contentedness for the main part of the Question by pleasing him in that part which it may be makes the biggest noise though it be less material 4. If the thing had been mention'd by the Ancients they need not would not ought not to have troubled themselves and others by a new word to have still retained the old proposition under the old words would have been less suspicious more prudent and ingenious but to bring in a new name is but the cover for a new doctrine and therefore S. Paul left an excellent precept to the Church to avoid prophanas vocum novitates the prophane newness of words that is it is fit that the mysteries revealed in Scripture should be preached and taught in the words of the Scripture and with that simplicity openness easiness and candor and not with new and unhallowed words such as is that of Transubstantiation 5. A Castro did not speak of the name alone but of the thing also de transubstantiatione panis in Corpus Christi of the Transubstantiation of bread into Christs body of this manner of conversion that is of this doctrine now doctrines consist not in words but things however his last words are faint and weak and guilty for being convinc'd of the weakness of his defence of the thing he left to himself a subterfuge of words But let it be how it will with a Castro whom I can very well spare if he will not be allowed to speak sober sense and as a wise man should we have better and fuller testimonies in this affair That the Fathers did not so much as touch the matter or thing of Transubstantiation said the Jesuits in prison as is reported by the Author of the modest discourse And the great Erasmus who liv'd and died in the Communion of the Church of Rome and was as likely as any man of his age to know what he said gave this testimony in the present Question In synaxi transubstantiationem sero definivit Ecclesia In priorem Epist ad Corinthios citante etiam Salmeron tom 9. tract 16. p. 108. re nomine veteribus ignotam In the Communion the Church hath but lately defin'd Transubstantiation which both in the thing and in the name was unknown to the Ancients Now this was a fair and friendly inducement to the Reader to take from him all prejudice Videat lector Picherellum exposit verborum institutionis coenae Domini ejusdem dissertationem de Missâ
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 praedicate 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 aequivocal 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 praedicate 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 sense and the truth but his sense 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 prophecy 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 bloud 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 treates 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 fabric of this mystery he must have said Pag. 296. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 thing figured the one visible and the other invisible and this is it which I affirmed to be the sense of Iustin Martyr Oratio 2. in Pascha And it is more perfectly explicated by Saint Greg. Naz. calling the Paschal 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 bloud so are we taught that that very nourishment on which by the prayers of his word thanks are given by which our flesh and bloud are nourished by change is the flesh and bloud of the incarnate Iesus 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 * Sic solemâ—â— loqui ficut panis est vita corporis ita verbum Dei est vita animae Non scil eundem conversionis aut nutriendi modum connot ando sed similem analogicum effectum â—triusque nutrimenti observando 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 proves 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 sense which the Church of Rome at this day will not allow and if it were allowed it would follow that Christs 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 Iustin Martyr Lib. 4. c. 34. lib. 5. c. 2. 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 A. L. 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 if he had foreseen he should
have been written against by so learned an adversary But to let them agree as well as they can the words of Eusebius Demonstr Evang. l. 1. c. ult 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle received a command according to the constitution of the N. T. to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the table by the symbols of his body and healthful bloud So the words are translated in the Dissuasive But the letter translates them thus Seeing therefore we have received the memory of this sacrifice to be celebrated in certain signs on the Table and the memory of that body and healthful bloud as is the institute of the new Testament out of his last chapter I translated as well as I could the Greek words I have set in the Margent that every one that understands may see I did him right and indeed to do my Adversary right when he goes about to change not to mend the translation he only changes the order of the words but in nothing does he mend his own matter by it for he acknowledges the main Question viz. that the memory of Christs sacrifice is to be celebrated in certain figns on the Table but then that I may do my self right and the question too whosoever translated these words for this Gentleman hath abused him and made him to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is so far off it and hath no relation to it and not to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with which it is joyn'd and hath made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it hath a substantive of its own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he repeats 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 once more than it is in the words of Eusebius only because he would not have the Reader suppose that Eusebius call'd the consecrated Elements the symbols of the body and bloud But this fraud was too much studied to be excusable upon the stock of humane infirmity or an innocent perswasion But that I may satisfie the Reader in this Question so far as the testimony and doctrine of Eusebius can extend he hath these words fully to our purpose Lib. 5. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First our Lord and Saviour and then after him his Priests of all Nations celebrating the spiritual sacrifice according to the Ecclesiastick Laws by the bread and the wine signifie the mysteries of his body and healing bloud Et lib. 8. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et Paulo post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again By the wine which is the symbol of his bloud he purges the old sins of them who were baptized into his death and believe in his bloud Again he gave to his Disciples the symbols of the divine Oeconomy commanding them to make the image figure or representation of his own body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again He received not the sacrifices of bloud nor the slaying of divers beasts instituted in the Law of Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but ordained we should use bread the symbol of his own body So far I thought fit to set down the words of Eusebius to convince my Adversary that Eusebius is none of theirs but he is wholly ours in the doctrine of the Sacrament S. Macarius is cited in the Dissuasive in these words Macarius homil 27. In the Church is offered bread and wine the Antitype of his flesh and bloud and they that partake of the bread that appears do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ. * Pag. 22. A. L. saith Macarius saith not so but rather the contrary viz. bread and wine exhibiting the Exemplar or an antitype his flesh and bloud Now although I do not suppose many learned or good men will concern themselves with what this little man says yet I cannot but note that they who gave him this answer may be asham'd for here is a double satisfaction in this little answer First he puts in the word exhibiting of his own head there being no such word in S. Macarius in the words quoted 2. He makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be put with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of apposition expresly against the mind of S. Macarius and against the very Grammar of his words And after all he studies to abuse his Author and yet gets no good by it himself for if it were in the words as he hath invented it or some body else for him yet it makes against him as much saying bread and wine exhibite Christs body which is indeed true though not here said by the Saint but is directly against the Roman article because it confesses that to be bread and wine by which Christs body is exhibited to us but much more is the whole testimony of S. Macarius which in the Dissuasive are translated exactly as the Reader may see by the Greek words cited in the Margent There now only remains the authority of S. Austin Pag. ibid. which this Gentleman would fain snatch from the Church of England and assert to his own party I cited five places out of S. Austin to the last of which but one he gives this answer that S. Austin hath no such words in that book that is in the 10. book against Faustus the Manichee Concerning which I am to inform the Gentleman a little better These words that which by all men is called a sacrifice is the sign of the true sacrifice are in the 10. book of S. Austin de C. D. cap. 5. and make a distinct quotation and ought by the Printer to have been divided by a colume as the other But the following words in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the sacrament of remembrance are in the 20. book cap. 21. against Faustus the Manichee * Hujus sacrificii caro sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur in passione Christi per ipsa◠veritatem reddebatur po◠ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur lib. 20. c. 21. contr Faustum Manich. All these words and divers others of S. Austin I knit together into a close order like a continued discourse but all of them are S. Austins words as appears in the places set down in the Margent But this Gentleman car'd not for what was said by S. Austin he was as well pleased that a figure was false Printed but to the words he hath nothing to say To the first of the other four only he makes this crude answer that S. Austin denied not the real eating of Christs body in the Eucharist but only the eating it in that gross carnal and sensible manner as the Capharnaites conceiv'd To which I reply that it is true that upon occasion of this error S. Austin did speak those words and although the Roman error
Alexandria defines the Church to be Clem. Alex. strom lib. pag. 715. edit Paris A. D. 1629. the Congregation of the Elect. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the Church I do not mean the place but the gathering or heap of the Elect for this is the better Temple for the receiving the greatness of the dignity of God For that living thing which is of great price to him who is worthy of all price yea to whose price nothing is too great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is consecrated by the excellency of holiness But more full is that of Saint Austin De Papt contr Donatist lib. â— cap 51. 52. who spends two chapters in affirming that onely they who serve God faithfully are the Church of God The temple of God is holy which Temple ye are For this is in the good and faithful and the holy servants of God scattered every where and combin'd by a spiritual union in the same communion of Sacraments whether they know one another by face or no. Others it is certain are so said to be in the House of God that they do not pertain to the structure of the house nor to the society of fructifying and peace-making justice but are as chaff in the wheat For we cannot deny that they are in the house the Apostle Paul saying That in a great house there are not onely vessels of gold and silver but wood and earth some for honour and some for dishonour And a little before I do not speak rashly when I say Some are so in the house of God that they also are that very house of God which is said to be built upon a rock which is called the onely dove the fair spouse without spot or wrinkle the garden shut up a fountain sealed a pit of living water a fruitful paradise This is the house which hath received the Keys and the power of loosing and binding whosoever shall despise this house reproving and correcting him he saith let him be as an heathen and a Publican And then he proceeds to describe who are this house by the characters of sanctity S. Aug. lib. 2. câ—ntâ— Cresâ—n cap. 21. vide eund lib. â— contr Petâ— cap. ult l. â— de bapt cap. 3. l. 6. c. 3. of charity and unity Propter malam pollutámque conscientiam damnati à Christo jam in corpore Christi non sunt quod est Ecclesia quoniam non potest Christus habere damnata membra Those who are condemned by Christ for their evil and polluted consciences are not in Christs body which is the Church for Christ hath no damned members And this besides that it is expressly taught in the Augustan Confession Mali quidem sunt in Ecclesiâ— sed non de Ecclesiâ quia mali non suâ—t de regnâ—â— ei sed de regn Diaboli Vide etiam Gregor M. lib. 28. Moral c 9. it is also the Doctrine of divers Roman Doctors that wicked men are not true members of the body of the Church but equivocally So Alexander of Hales Hugo and Aquinas as they are quoted by Turrecremata so Petrus à Soto Melchior Canus Lib. 1. cap. 57. apud B. ll l. 3. cap. 9. De Ecclesiâ milâ—tante and others as Bellarmine himself confesses so that if it be said that evil men are in the Church it is true but they are not of the Church as S. John's expression is for if they had been of us they would have tarried with us which words seem to be of the same sense with those Fathers who affirm the Church to be The number of the predestinate whom God loves to the end But however the wicked are onely in the body of the Church Tract 3. in Epist. Johan Bellar. ubi suprà Sect. Idem Augustinus as peccant humours and excrements and hair and putrefaction so said S. Austin as Bellarmine quotes him and the same thing in almost the same words is set down by * Coster ap logpro parte 3â— Enchirid. c. 12. Sect. Qui non Coster the Jesuit and when Bellarmine attempts to answer this saying of S. Austin he says he means that the wicked are not in the Church in the same manner as the godly are that is not as living members which though it be put in the place of an Answer to amuse the young fellows that are captivated with the admirable method of Ob. and Sol. yet it plainly confesses the point in question viz. that the wicked are not members of Christs body and if they be not then to them belong not the Privileges and Promises which God gave and promised to his Church for they were given for the sake of the Saints onely Ibid. Sect. Respondeo Augustiâ—um saith S. Austin and Bellarmine confesses it But I need not be digging the Cisterns for this truth Christ himself hath taught it to us very plainly Joh. 15. 14. Joh. 14. 21. Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you not upon any other terms and I hope none but friends are parts of Christs mystical body members of the Church whereof he is head and the onely condition of this ver 15. is if we do whatsoever Christ commands us And that this very blessing and promise of knowing and understanding the will of God appertains onely to the godly Christ declares in the very next words Henceforth I call you not servants for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doth but I have called you friends for all things I have heard from my Father I have made known unto you So that being the friends of God is the onely way to know the will of God None are infallible but they that are holy and they shall certainly be directed by Christ and the Spirit of Christ. Joh. 7 17. If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of my self said our Blessed Lord. And S. John 1 Joh. 2. 27. said Ye have received the unction from above and that anointing teacheth you all things The Spirit of God is the great teacher of all truth to the Church but they that grieve the holy Spirit of God they that quench the Spirit they that defile his Temple from these men he will surely depart That he shall abide with men unto the end of the world is a promise not belonging to them but to them that keep his Commandments The external parts of Religion may be ministred by wicked persons and by wicked persons may be received but the secrets of the Kingdom the spiritual excellencies of the Gospel that is truth and holiness a saving and an unreprovable faith and an indefectible love to be United to Christ and to be members of his body these are the portions of Saints not of wicked persons whether Clergy or Laity The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom Prov. 10. 31. and the lips of the righteous know what is acceptable said
Solomon but when we consider those men who detain the Faith in Vnrighteousness it is no wonder that God leaves them and gives them over to believe a Lye and delivers them to the spirit of Illusion and therefore it will be ill to make our Faith to rely upon such dangerous foundations As all the Principles and graces of the Gospel are the propriety of the Godly so they only are the Church of God of which glorious things are spoken and it will be vain to talk of the infallibility of God's Church the Roman Doctors either must confess it Subjected here that is in the Church in this sense or they can find it no where In short This is the Church in the sense now explicated which is the pillar and ground of truth but this is not the sense of the Church of Rome and therefore from hence they refusing to have their learning can never pretend wisely that they can be Infalliby directed We have seen what is the true meaning of the Church of God according to the Scriptures and Fathers and sometimes Persons formerly in the Church of Rome In the next place let us see what now a days they mean by the Church with which name or word they so much abuse the world 1. Therefore by Church sometimes they mean the whole body of them that profess Christianity Greges pastoribus adunatos Priest and People Bishops and their Flocks all over the world upon whom the name of Christ is called whether they be dead in sins or alive in the spirit whether good Christians or false hypocrites but all the number of the Baptized except Excommunicates that are since cut off make this body Now the word Church I grant may and is given to them by way of supposition and legal presumption as a Jury of twelve men are called Good men and true that is they are not known to be otherwise and therefore presum'd to be such And they are the Church in all humane accounts that is they are the Congregation of all that profess the name of Christ of whom every particular that is not known to be wicked is presum'd to be good and therefore is still part of the External Church in which are the wheat and the tares and they are bound up in Common by the Union of Sacraments and external rites De doctr Christ. lib. 3. c. 32. name and profession but by nothing else This Doctrine is well explicated by S. Austin That is not the body of Christ which shall not reign with him for ever And yet we must not say it is bipartite but it is either true or mixt or it is either true or counterfeit or some such thing For not only in eternity but even now hypocrites are not to be said to be with Christ although they may seem to be of his Church But the Scripture speaks of those and these as if they were both of one body propter temporalem commixtionem communionem Sacramentorum they are only combin'd by a temporal mixtion and united by the common use of the Sacraments And this to my sense all the Churches of the world seem to say for when they excommunicate a person then they throw him out of the Church meaning that all his being in the Church of which they could take cognisance is but by the Communion of Sacraments and external society Imped ri non debet fides aut charitas nostra ut quoniam zizania esse in Ecclesiâ cernimus ipsi de Ecclesiâ recedamus â— Cypr. lib. 3. ep 3. ad Maximum Now out of this society no man must depart because although a better union with Christ and one another is most necessary yet even this cannot ought not to be neglected for by the outward the inward is set forward and promoted and therefore to depart from the external communion of the Church upon pretence that the wicked are mingled with the godly is foolish and unreasonable for by such departing Scil. ep 51. edit Rigaltianae a man is not sure he shall depart from all the wicked but he is sure he shall leave the communion of the good who are mingled in the common Mass with the wicked or else all that which we call the Church is wicked And what can such men propound to themselves of advantage when they certainly forsake the society of the good for an imaginary departure from the wicked and after all the care they can take they leave a society in which are some intemperate or many worldly men and erect a Congregation for ought they know of none but hypocrites So that which we call the Church is permixta Ecclesia as S. Austin is content it should be called a mixt Assembly Vbi suprà and for this mixture sake under the cover and knot of external communion the Church that is all that company is esteemed one body and the appellatives are made in common and so are the addresses and offices and ministeries because of those that are not now some will be good and a great many that are evil are undiscernably so and in that communion are the ways and ministeries and engagements of being good and above all in that society are all those that are really good therefore it is no wonder that we call this Great mixtion by the name of Ecclesia or the Church But then since the Church hath a more sacred Notion it is the spouse of Christ his dove his beloved his body his members his temple his house in which he loves to dwell and which shall dwell with him for ever and this Church is known and discern'd and lov'd by God and is United unto Christ therefore although when we speak of all the acts and duties of the judgments and nomenclatures of outward appearances and accounts of law we call the mixt Society by the name of the Church Yet when we consider it in the true proper and primary meaning by the intention of God and the nature of the thing and the Entercourses between God and his Church all the promises of God the Spirit of God the life of God and all the good things of God are peculiar to the Church of God in God's sense in the way in which he owns it that is as it is holy United unto Christ like to him and partaker of the Divine nature The other are but a heap of men keeping good Company calling themselves by a good name managing the external parts of Union and Ministery but because they otherwise belong not to God the promises no otherwise belong to them but as they may and when they * In Ecclesiâ non est macula aut ruga quia peccatores donec non poenitet eos vitae prioris nâ—n sunt in Ecclesiâ cum autem poenitel jam sani sunt Pacian ep 3. ad Symp onium Idem aâ—t S. Hieron comment in Ephes. c. 5. Maculaâ—i ab eâ Ecclesiâ alieni esse censentur nisi rursum per
things we cannot certainly know that the Church of Rome is the true Catholick Church how shall the poor Roman Catholick be at rest in his inquiry Here is in all this nothing but uncertainty of truth or certainty of error And what is needful to be added more I might tire my self and my Reader if I should enumerate all that were very considerable in this inquiry I shall not therefore insist upon their uncertainties in their great and considerable Questions about the number of the Sacraments which to be Seven is with them an Article of Faith and yet since there is not amongst them any authentick definition of a Sacrament and it is not nor cannot be a matter of Faith to tell what is the form of a Sacrament therefore it is impossible it should be a matter of Faith to tell how many they are for in this case they cannot tell the number unless they know for what reason they are to be accounted so The Fathers and School-men differ greatly in the definition of a Sacrament and consequently in the numbring of them S. Cyprian and S. Bernard reckon washing the Disciples feet to be a Sacrament and S. Austin called omnem ritunt cultus Divini a Sacrament and otherwhile he says there are but two and the Schoolmen dispute whether or no a Sacrament can be defin'd And by the Council of Trent Clandestine Marriages are said to be a Sacrament and yet that the Church always detested them which indeed might very well be for the blessed Eucharist is a Sacrament but yet private Masses and Communions the Ancient Church always did detest except in the cases of necessity But then when at Trent they declar'd them to be Nullities it would be very hard to prove them to be Sacraments All the whole affair in their Sacrament of Order is a body of contingent propositions They cannot agree where the Apostles receiv'd their several Orders by what form of words and whether at one time or by parts and in the Institution of the Lord's Supper the same words by which some of them say they were made Priests they generally expound them to signifie a duty of the Laity as well as the Clergy Hoc facite which signifies one thing to the Priest and another to the People and yet there is no mark of difference They cannot agree where or by whom extreme Unction was instituted They cannot tell whether any Wafer be actually transubstantiated because they never can know by Divine Faith whether the supposed Priest be a real Priest or had right intention and yet they certainly do worship it in the midst of all Uncertainties But I will add nothing more but this what Wonder is it if all things in the Church of Rome be Uncertain when they cannot dare not trust their reason or their senses in the wonderful invention of Transubstantiation and when many of their wisest Doctors profess that their pretended infallibility does finally rely upon prudential motives I conclude this therefore with the words of S. Austin Remotis ergo omnibus talibus De Vnit. Eccles cap. 16. c. All things therefore being remov'd let them demonstrate their Church if they can not in the Sermons and Rumors of the Africans Romans not in the Councils of their Bishops not in the Letters of any disputers not in signs and deceitful Miracles because against these things we are warned and prepar'd by the word of the Lord But in the praescript of the Law of the Prophets of the Psalms of the Evangelists and all the Canonical authorities of the Holy Books And that 's my next undertaking to show the firmness of the foundation and the Great Principle of the Religion of the Church of England and Ireland even the Holy Scriptures SECTION II. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Salvation which is the great foundation and ground of the Protestant Religion THis question is between the Church of Rome and the Church of England and therefore it supposes that it is amongst them who believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God The Old and New Testament are agreed upon to be the word of God and that they are so is deliver'd to us by the current descending testimony of all ages of Christianity and they who thus are first lead into this belief find upon trial great after-proofs by arguments both external and internal and such as cause a perfect adhesion to this truth that they are Gods Word an adhesion I say so perfect as excludes all manner of practical doubting Now then amongst us so perswaded the Question is Whether or no the Scriptures be a sufficient rule of our faith and contain in them all things necessary to salvation or Is there any other word of God besides the Scriptures which delivers any points of faith or doctrines of life necessary to salvation This was the state of the Question till yesterday And although the Church of Rome affirm'd Tradition to be a part of the object of faith and that without the addition of doctrine and practises deliver'd by tradition the Scriptures were not a perfect rule but together with tradition they are yet now two or three Gentlemen have got upon the Coach-wheel and have raised a cloud of dust enough to put out the eyes even of their own party Vid. hist. â—oncil Trident. sub Paul 3. A. D. 1546. making them not to see what till now all their Seers told them and Tradition is not onely a suppletory to the deficiencies of Scripture but it is now the onely record of faith But because this is too bold and impossible an attempt and hath lately been sufficiently reprov'd by some learned persons of our Church I shall therefore not trouble my self with such a frontless errour and illusion but speak that truth which by justifying the Scripture's fulness and perfection will overthrow the doctrine of the Roman Church denying it and ex abundanti cast down this new mud-wall thrown into a dirty heap by M. W. and his under-dawber M. S. who with great pleasure behold and wonder at their own work and call it a Marble Building 1. That the Scripture is a full and sufficient rule to Christians in faith and manners a full and perfect Declaration of the will of God is therefore certain because we have no other For if we consider the grounds upon which all Christians believe the Scriptures to be the word of God the same grounds prove that nothing else is These indeed have a Testimony that is credible as any thing that makes faith to men The universal testimony of all Christians In respect of which S. Austin said Evangelio non crederem c. I should not believe the Gospel if the Authority of the Church that is of the universal Church did not move me The Apostles at first own'd these Writings the Churches receiv'd them they transmitted them to their posterity they grounded their faith upon them they proved their propositions by them by them
Ruffinus says The Apostles being to separate and go to their several charges appointed Normam futurae praedicationis regulam dandam credentibus unanimitatis fidei suae indicium the Rule of what they were to preach to all the world the measure for believers the Index of Faith and Unity Not any speech not so much as one even of them that went before them in the faith was admitted or heard by the Church By this Creed the foldings of infidelity are loosed by this the gate of life is set open by this the glory of Confession is shewn It is short in words but great in Sacraments It confirms all men with the perfection of believing with the desire of confessing with the confidence of the Resurrection Whatsoever was prefigured in the Patriarchs whatsoever is declar'd in the Scriptures whatsoever was foretold in the Prophets of God who was not begotten Serm. 131. de tempore sive Serm. 2. de exposit Symboli ad Competenteâ— of the Son of God who is the onely begotten of God or the Holy Spirit c. Totum hoc breviter juxta oraculum propheticum Symbolum in se continet confitendo So S. Austin who also cals it The fulness of them that believe It is the rule of faith the short the certain rule which the Apostles comprehended in twelve Sentences that the believers might hold the Catholick Vnity and convince the heretical pravity The comprehension and perfection of our faith Serm. 181. de tempore Hom. 115. The short and perfect Confession of the Catholick Symbol is consigned with so many Sentences of the twelve Apostles Epist. 13. ad Pulcher. Augustum is so furnished with celestial ammunition that all the opinions of Hereticks may be cut off with that sword alone said Pope Leo. I could adde many more testimonies declaring the simplicity of the Christian faith and the fulness and sufficiency of the Apostolical Creed But I summe them up in the words of Rabanus Maurus In the Apostles Creed there are but few words Lib. 2. de institut Clericorum cap. 56. but it contains all Religion Omnia in eo continentur Sacramenta for they were summarily gathered together from the whole Scriptures by the Apostles that because many Believers cannot read or if they can yet by their secular affairs are hindred that they do not read the Scriptures retaining these in their hearts they may have enough of saving knowledge Now then since the whole Catholick Church of God in the primitive ages having not only declar'd that all things necessary to salvation are sufficiently contain'd in the plain places of Scripture but that all which the Apostles knew necessary they gathered together in a Symbol or form of Confession and esteem'd the belief of this sufficient unto salvation and that they requir'd no more in credendis as of necessity to Eternal life but the simple belief of these articles these things ought to remain in their own form and order For what is and what is not necessary is either such by the Nature of the Articles themselves or by the Oeconomy of Gods Commandment and what God did command and what necessary effect every Article had the Apostles onely could tell and others from them They that pretend to a power of doing so as the Apostles did have shown their want of skill and by that confess their want of power of doing that which to do is beyond their skill For which sins are venial and which are mortal all the Doctors of the Church of Rome cannot tell and how then can they tell this of Errors when they cannot tell it of Actions But if any man will search into the harder things or any more secret Sacrament of Religion by that means to raise up his mind to the contemplation of heavenly things and to a contempt of things below he may do it if he please so that he do not impose the belief of his own speculations upon others or compel them to confess what they know not and what they cannot find in Scriptures or did not receive from the Apostles We find by experience that a long act of Parliament or an Indenture and Covenant that is of great length ends none but causes many contentions and when many things are defin'd and definitions spun out into declarations men believe less and know nothing more And what is Man that he who knows so little of his own body of the things done privately in his own house of the nature of the meat he eates nay that knows so little of his own Heart and is so great a stranger to the secret courses of Nature I say what is man that in the things of God he should be asham'd to say This is a secret This God onely knows S. Athanas. ep ad Serapion This he hath not reveal'd This I admire but I understand not I believe but I understand it to be a mystery And cannot a man enjoy the gift which God gives and do what he commands but he must dispute the Philosophy of the gift or the Metaphysicks of a Command Cannot a man eat Oysters unless he wrangle about the number of the senses which that poor animal hath and will not condited Mushromes be swallowed down unless you first tell whether they differ specifically from a spunge S. Basil. de Spir. S. c. 13. Is it not enough for me to believe the words of Christ saying This is my body and cannot I take it thankfully and believe it heartily and confess it joyfully but I must pry into the secret and examine it by the rules of Aristotle and Porphyry and find out the nature and the undiscernable philosophy of the manner of its change and torment my own brains and distract my heart and torment my Brethren and lose my charity and hazard the loss of all the benefits intended to me by the Holy Body because I break those few words into more questions than the holy bread is into particles to be eaten Is it not enough that I believe that whether we live or die we are the Lord's in case we serve him faithfully but we must descend into hell and inquire after the secrets of the dead and dream of the circumstances of the state of separation and damn our Brethren if they will not allow us and themselves to be half damn'd in Purgatory Is it not enough that we are Christians that is that we put all our hope in God who freely giveth us all things by his Son Jesus Christ that we are redeemed by his death that he rose again for our justification that we are made members of his body in Baptism that he gives us of his Spirit that being dead to the lusts of this world we should live according to his doctrine and example that is that we do no evil that we do what good we can that we love God and love our Brother that we suffer patiently and do good things in expectation of better even of
restrain them yet it abated much of their willingness but there was less need of it because they had very well purg'd them before by cancellating the lines by parting the pages by corrupting their Writings by putting Glosses in the Margent and afterwards putting these Glosses into the Text. Quod lector ineptiens annotârat in margine sui codicis Scribae retulerunt in contextum said Erasmus in his Preface to the Works of S. Austin to the Archbishop of Toledo and the same also is observed by the Paris-overseers of the press in their Preface to their Edition of S. Austin's Works at Paris 1571. by Martin and Nivellius And this thing was notorious in a considerable instance in S. Cyprian * Vide Pamelii annot in librum de Vnitate Ecclesiae where after the words of Christ spoken to S. Peter and recorded by S. Matthew there had been a marginal note Hîc Petro primatus datur which words they have brought into the Roman and Antwerp Editions but they have both left out Hîc and the Roman instead of it hath put Et. And whereas in the old Editions of Cyprian even the Roman it self these words were He who withstandeth and resisteth the Church doth he trust himself to be in the Church some body hath made bold to put the words thus in the Text of the Edition of Antwerp He who forsaketh Peter's Chair on which the Church is founded doth he trust himself to be in the Church But in how many places that excellent Book of S. Cyprian's is interlined and spoil'd by the new Correctors is evident to him that shall compare the Roman Edition with the elder Copies and them with the later Edition of Antwerp and Pamelius himself concerning some words saith ibid. Atque adeò non sumus veriti in textum inserere I could bring in many considerable instances though it be more than probable that of forty falsities in the abusing the Father's Writings by Roman hands there was not perhaps above one or two discoveries yet this and many other concurrences might make it less needful to pass their Sponges upon the Fathers But when the whole charge of printing of Books at Rome lies on the Apostolical See as a Epist. l. 9. ad Jacobum Gorseium Manutius tells us it is likely enough that all shall be taken care of so as shall serve their purposes And so the Printer tells us viz. In Praef. ad Pium Quartm in librum Cardinalis Poli de Câ—ncilio That such care was taken to have them so corrected that there should be no spot which might infect the minds of the simple with the shew or likeness of false doctrine And now by this we may very well perceive how the force was put upon Saurius in the purging S. Ambrose even by the Inquisitors and that by the authority and care of the Pope and therefore though the Works of most of the greater Fathers were not put into the Expurgatory Indices yet they were otherwise purged that is most shamefully corrupted torn and maimed and the lesser Fathers pass'd under the file in the Expurgatory Indices themselves 3. But then The Author of a Letter to a friend pag 7. E. W. p. 20. that they purg'd the Indices of the Fathers Works is so notorious that it is confess'd and endeavour'd to be justified But when we come to consider that many times the very words of the Fathers which are put into the Index are commanded to be expung'd it at once shows that fain they would and yet durst not expunge the words out of the Books since they would be discover'd by their adversaries and they would suffer reproach without doing any good to themselves Now whereas it is said that therefore the words of the Fathers are blotted out of the Indices E. W. p. 1â— because they are set down without antecedents and consequents and prepare the Reader to an ill sense this might be possible but we see it otherwise in the Instances themselves which oftentimes are so plain that no context no circumstances can alter the proposition which is most of all notorious in the deleatur's of the Indices of the Bible set forth by Robert Stephen Credens Christo non morietur in aeternum this is to be blotted out Joh. 11. 26. and yet Christ himself said it Every one that lives and believes in me shall never die Justus coram Deo nemo is to be blotted out of Robert Stephen's Index Psal. 142. v. 1. alias 143. and yet David prayed Enter not into judgment with thy servant O Lord for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Now what antecedent or what context or what circumstances can alter the sense of these places which being the same in the Text and the Index shews the good will of the Inquisitors and that like King Edward the 6th his Tutor they corrected the Prince upon his Page's back and they have given sufficient warning of the danger of those words wherever they find them in the Fathers since they have so openly rebuked them in the Indices And therefore I made no distinction of places but reckon'd those words censur'd in the Expurgatory Tables as the Fathers words censur'd or expung'd and in this I followed the style of their own Books for in the Belgick Index the style is thus In Hieronymi Operibus expungenda pag. 70. Edit 1611. quae sequuntur and yet they are the Scholia Indices and sense of the Fathers set down and printed in the same volume altogether and having the same fate and all upon the same account I had reason to charge it as I did And how far the evil of this did proceed may easily be conjectur'd by what was done by the Inquisition in the year 1559. in which there was a Catalogue of 62 Printers and all the books which any of them printed of what authour or what language soever prohibited and all books which were printed by Printers that had printed any books of Hereticks insomuch that not onely books of a hundred two hundred three hundred years ago and approbation were prohibited but there scarce remained a book to be read But by this means they impose upon mens faith and consciences suffering them to allow of nothing in any man no not in the Fathers but what themselves mark out for them not measuring their own doctrines by the Ancients but reckoning their sayings to be or not to be Catholick according as they agree to their present opinions which is infinitely against the candor ingenuity and confidence of truth which needs none of these arts And besides all this how shall it be possible to find out tradition by succession when they so interrupt and break the intermedial lines And this is beyond all the foregoing instances very remarkable in their purging of Histories In Munsters Cosmography there was a long Story of Ludovicus the Emperour of the house of Bavaria that made very much against
times visiting the Altar aforesaid fourteen or fifteen plenary pardons Certainly the Popes suppose these persons to be mighty Criminals that they need so many pardons so many plenaries But two All 's of the same thing is as much as two Nothings But if there were not infinite causes of fear that very many of them were nullities and that none of them were of any certain avail there could be no pretence of reasonableness in dispensing these Jewels with so loose a hand and useless a freedom as if a man did shovel Mustard or pour Hogsheads of Vinegar into his friends mouth to make him swallow a mouthful of Herbs 7. What is the secret meaning of it that in divers clauses in their Bulls of Indulgences Bull. Julii 3. de an Jubilii they put in this clause A pardon of all their sins be they never so heinous The extraordinary cases reserved to the Pope and the consequent difficulty of getting pardon of such great sins because it would cost much more mony was or might be some little restraint to some persons from running easily into the most horrible impieties but to give such a loose to this little and this last rein and curb and by an easie Indulgence to take off all even the most heinous sins what is it but to give the Devil an argument to tempt persons that have any conscience or fear left to throw off all fear and to stick at nothing 8. It seems hard to give a reasonable account what is meant by giving a plenary pardon of all their sins and yet at the same time an Indulgence of 12000. years and as many Quarentaines it seems the bounty of the Church runs out of a Conduit though the Vessels be full yet the water still continues running and goes into wast 9. In this great heap of Indulgences and so it is in very many other power is given to a Lay Sister or Brother to free a soul from Purgatory But if this be so easily granted the necessity of Masses will be very little what need is there to give greater fees to a Physician when a sick person may be cur'd with a Posset and Pepper The remedy of the way of Indulgences is cheap and easie a servant with a Candle a Pater and an Ave a going to visit an Altar wearing the Scapular of the Carmelites or the Chord of S. Francis but Masses for souls are a dear commodity five pence or six pence is the least a Mass will cost in some places nay it will stand in nine pence in other places But then if the Pope can do this trick certainly then what can be said to John Gersons question Arbitrio Papa proprio si clavibus uti Possit cur sinit ut poena pios cruciet Cur non evacuat loca purgandis animabus Tradita The answer makes up the Tetrastic sed servus esse fidelis amat The Pope may be kind but he must be wise too a faithful and wise Steward he must not destroy the whole state of the purging Church if he takes away all the fuel from the fire who shall make the Pot boyl This may not be done Ut possint superesse quos peccasse poeniteat Sinners must pay for it in their bodies or their purses SECTION II. Of Purgatory THat the doctrine of Purgatory as it is taught in the Roman Church is a Novelty and a part of their New Religion is sufficiently attested by the words of the Cardinal of Rochester and Alphonsus a Castro whose words I now add that he who pleases may see how these new men would fain impose their new fancies upon the Church under pretence and title of Ancient and Catholic verities The words of Roffensis in his eighteenth article against Luther are these * A letter to a friend touching Dr. Taylor Sect. 4. n. 26. p. 10. which if the Reader please for his curiosity or his recreation to see he shall find this pleasant passage of deep learning and subtle observation Dr. Tay. had said that Roffensis and P. V. affirm that who so searcheth the Writings of the Greek Fathers shall find that none or very rarely any one of them ever makes mention of Purgatory Whereas Pol. Virgil affirms no such thing nor doth Roffensis say That very rarely any one of them mentiâ—ns it but only that in thâ—se Ancient Writers he shall find none or but very rare mention of it If this man were in his wits when he made this answer an answer which no man can unriddle or tell how it opposes the objection then it is very certain that if this can pass among the answers to the Protestants objections the Papists are in a very great strait and have very little to say for themselves and the letter to a friend was written by compulsion and by the shame of confutation not of conscience or ingenuous persuasion No man can be so foolish as to suppose this fit to be given in answer to any sober discourse or if there be such pittiful people in the Church of Rome and trusted to write Books in defence of their Religion it seems they care not what any man says or proves against them if the people be but coâ—â—n'd with a pretended answer for that serves the turn as well as a wiser Legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios nullum quantum opinor aut quam rarissimum de purgatorio sermonem inveniet Sed neque latini simul omnes at sensim hujus rei veritatem conceperunt He that pleases let him read the Commentaries of the Old Greeks and as I suppose he shall find none or very rare mention or speech of Purgatory But neither did all the Latins at one time but by little and little conceive the truth of this thing And again Aliquandiu incognitum fuit sero cognitum Universae Ecclesiae Deinde quibusdam pedetentim partim ex Scripturis partim ex revelationibus creditum fuit For somewhile it was unknown it was but lately known to the Catholic Church Then it was believ'd by some by little and little partly from Scripture partly from revelations And this is the goodly ground of the doctrine of Purgatory founded no question upon tradition Apostolical delivered some hundreds of years indeed after they were dead but the truth is because it was forgotten by the Apostles and they having so many things in their heads when they were alive wrote and said nothing of it therefore they took care to send some from the dead who by new revelations should teach this old doctrine This we may conjecture to be the aequivalent sense of the plain words of Roffensis But the plain words are sufficient without a Commentary Lib. 8. cap. 1. de inven rerum Now for Polydore Virgil his own words can best tell what he says Ego vero Originem quod mei est muneris quaeritans non reperio ante fuisse quod sciam quum D. Gregorius ad suas stationes id praemii
Annue nobis Domine animae famuli tui Leonis haec profit oblatio it came to be chang'd into Annue nobis Domine ut intercessione famuli tui Leonis haec profit oblatio Pope Innocent answered him that who chang'd it or when he knew not but he knew how that is he knew the reason of it because the authority of the Holy Scripture said he does injury to a Martyr that prays for a Martyr the same thing is to be done for the like reason concerning all other Saints The good man had heard the saying somewhere but being little us'd to the Bible he thought it might be there because it was a pretty saying However though this change was made in the Mass-books and prayer for the soul of S. Leo was chang'd into a prayer to S. Leo * Vide Missal Roman Paris 1529. and the Doctors went about to defend it as well as they could Cap. cum Marthae Extrav de celebrat Missarum in Gloslâ yet because they did it so pitifully they had reason to be asham'd of it and in the Missal reformed by order of the Council of Trent it is put out again and the prayer for S. Leo put in again * Missale Rom. in decreto Concil Trid. restit in festo S. Leonis That by these offices of holy atonement viz. the celebration of the Holy Sacrament a blessed reward may accompany him and the gifts of thy grace may be obtain'd for us Another argument was us'd in the Dissuasive against the Roman doctrine of Purgatory viz. How is Purgatory a Primitive and Catholick doctrine when generally the Greek and many of the Latin Fathers taught that the souls departed in some exterior place expect the day of judgment but that no soul enters into the supreme heaven or the place of Eternal bliss till the day of judgment but at that day say many of them all must pass through the universal fire To these purposes respectively the words of very many Fathers are brought by Sixtus Senensis to all which being so evident and apparent the Gentlemen that write against the Dissuasive are pleas'd not to say one word Letter to a friend pag. 12. but have left the whole fabric of the Roman Purgatory to shift for it self against the battery of so great authorities only one of them striving to find some fault says that the Dissuader quotes Sixtus Senensis as saying That Pope John the 22. not only taught and declar'd the doctrine that before the day of judgment the souls of men are kept in certain receptacles but commanded it to be held by all as saith Adrian in 4. Sent. when Sixtus Senensis saith not so of Pope John c. but only reports the opinion of others To which I answer that I did not quote Senensis as saying any such thing of his own authority For besides that in the body of the discourse there is no mention at all of John 22. in the margent also it is only said of Sixtus Enumerat S. Jacobum Apostolum Johannem Pontif. Rom. but I add of my own afterwards that Pope John not only taught and declar'd that sentence And these are the words of Senensis concerning P. John 22. and P. Adrian but commanded it to be held by all men as saith Adrian Now although in his narrative of it Adrian begins with novissime fertur it is reported yet Senensis himself when he had said Pope John is said to have decreed this he himself adds that Ocham and Pope Adrian are witnesses of this decree 2. Adrian is so far a witness of it that he gives the reason of the same even because the University of Paris refus'd to give promotion to them who denied or did refuse to promise for ever to cleave to that opinion 3. Ocham is so fierce a witness of it that he wrote against Pope John the 22. for the opinion 4. Though Senensis be not willing to have it believed yet all that he can say against it is that apud probatos scriptores non est Undequaque certum 5. Yet he brings not one testimony out of antiquity against this charge against Pope John only he says that Pope Benedict XI affirms that John being prevented by death could not finish the decree 6. But this thing was not done in a corner the acts of the University of Paris and their fierce adhering to the decree were too notorious 7. And after all this it matters not whether it be so or no when it is confessed that so many Ancient Fathers expresly teach the doctrine contrary to the Roman as it is this day and yet the Roman Doctors are not what they say insomuch that S. Bernard having fully and frequently taught That no souls go to Heaven till they all go neither the Saints without the common people nor the spirit without the flesh that there are three states of souls one in the tabernacles viz. of our bodies a second in atriis or outward Courts and a third in the house of God Alphonsus à Castro admonishes that this sentence is damn'd and Sixtus Senensis adds these words which thing also I do not deny yet I suppose he ought to be excus'd ob ingentem numerum illustrium Ecclesiae patrum for the great number of the illustrious Fathers of the Church Annot. 345. who before by their testimony did seem to give authority to this opinion But that the present doctrine of the Roman Purgatory is but a new article of faith is therefore certain because it was no article of faith in S. Austins time for he doubted of it And to this purpose I quoted in the margent two places of S. Austin Enchirid. cap. 68 69. The words I shall now produce because they will answer for themselves In the 68. chapter of his Manual to Laurentius he takes from the Church of Rome their best armour in which they trusted 1 Cor. 3. and expounds the words of S. Paul he shall be saved yet so as by fire to mean only the loss of such pleasant things as most delighted them in this world And in the beginning of the next chapter he adds Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est utrum ita sit quâ—ri potest That such a thing may also be done after this life is not incredible and whether it be so or no it may be inquir'd aut inveniri aut latere and either be found or lie hid Now what is that which thus may or may not be found out This that some faithful by how much more or less they lov'd perishing goods by so much sooner or later they shall be sav'd by a certain Purgatory fire This is it which S. Austin says is not incredible only it may be inquir'd whether it be so or no. And if these be not the words of doubting it is not incredible such a thing may be it may be inquir'd after it may be found to
poenas nullas futuras opinetur nisi ante illud ultimum tremendumque judicium Cap. 16. 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 into 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 sense In Psal. 6. 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 * De C. D. lib. 16. c. 24. lib. 20. c. 25. 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 that that S. 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 can be understood where it is said who shall endure the day of his coming c. 3. S. Austin speaks things expresly against the doctrine of Purgatory know ye that when the soul is pluck'd from the body presently it is plac'd in Paradise according to its good deservings or else for her sins is thrown headlong in inferni Tartara Aug. tam. 9. de vanitate saeculi c. 1. de consolatione mortuorum Serm. 2. cap. 1. into the hell of the damned for I know not well how else to render it And again the soul retiring is receiv'd by Angels and plac'd either in the bosom of Abraham if she be faithful or in the custody of the infernal prison De Dâ—gmat 6. Eccles. cap. 79. if it be sinful until the appointed day comes in which she shall receive her body pertinent to which is that of S. Austin Aut Augustini aut Gennadii if he be Author of that excellent book de Eccles. dogmatibus which is imputed to him After the ascension of our Lord to the Heavens the souls of all the Saints are with Christ and going from the body go unto Christ expecting the resurrection of their body But I shall insist no further upon these things I suppose it very apparent that S. Austin was no way confident of his fancy of Purgatory and that if he had fancied right yet it was not the Roman Purgatory that he fancied There is only one objection which I know of which when I have clear'd I shall pass on to other things S. Austin speaking of such who have liv'd a middle kind of an indifferent pious life saith Constat autem c. but it is certain that such before the day of judgment being purg'd by temporal pains which their spirit suffer when they have receiv'd their bodies shall not be deliver'd to the punishment of Eternal fire here is a positive determination of the article by a word of confidence and a full certificate and therefore S. Austin in this article was not a doubting person To this I answer it may be he was confident here but it lasted not long this fire was made of straw and soon went out for within two Chapters after he expresly doubts as I have prov'd 2. These words may refer to the purgatory fire at the general conflagration of the world and if they be so referred it is most agreeable to his other sentiments 3. This Constat or decretory phrase and some lines before or after it are not in the old books of Bruges and Colein nor in the copies printed at Friburg and Ludovicus vives supposes they were a marginal note crept since into the Text. Now this objection being remov'd Contra Pharis tit 8. there remains no ground to deny that S. Austin was a doubting person in the article of Purgatory And this Erasmus expresly affirm'd of him In exposit precationis missae Advers haeres lib. 12. tit Purgatorium and the same is said of him by Hofmeister but modestly and against his doubting in his Enchiridion he brings only a testimony in behalf of prayer for the dead which is nothing to the purpose and this is also sufficiently noted by Alphonsus a Castro In Cathol Romao pacifico 9 de purgat and by Barnesius Well! but suppose S. Austin did doubt of Purgatory This is no warranty to the Church of England for she does not doubt of it as S. Austin did but plainly condemns it So one of my adversaries objects To which I answer that the Church of England may the rather condemn it because S. Austin doubted of it for if it be no Catholic doctrine it is but a School point and without prejudice to the faith may be rejected But 2. I suppose the Church of England would not have troubled her self with the doctrine if it had been left as S. Austin left it that is but as a meer uncertain opinion but when the wrong end of the opinion was taken and made an article of faith and damnation threatned to them that believed it not she had reason to consider it and finding it to be chaff wholly to scatter it away 3. The Church of England is not therefore to be blamed if in any case she see more than S. Austin did and proceed accordingly for it is certain the Church of Rome does decree against divers things of which S. Austin indeed did not doubt but affirm'd confidently I instance in the necessity of communicating infants and the matter of appeals to Rome The next Authority to be examin'd is that of Otho Frisnigensis concerning which there is a heavy quarrel against the Dissuasive for making him to speak of a Purgatory before whereas he speaks of one after the day of judgment with a Quidam asserunt some affirm it viz. that there is a place of Purgatory after death nay but you are deceiv'd says E. W. and the rest of the adversaries he means that some affirm there is a place of Purgatory after the day of judgment Now truly that is more than I said but that Otho said it is by these men confess'd But his words are these I think it ought to be search'd Esse quippe apud inferos locum purgationum in quo
salvandi vel tenebris tantum afficiantur vel expiationis igne decoquantur quidam asserunt whether the judgment being pass'd besides the lower hell there remain a place for lighter punishments for that there is below or in hell a Purgatory place in which they that are to be sav'd are either affected aâ—ficiantur invested punish'd with darkness only or else are boiled in the fire of expiation some do affirm What is or can be more plainly said of Purgatory for the places of Scripture brought to confirm this opinion are such which relate to the interval between death and the last judgment juxta illud Patriarchae lugens descendum ad inferos illud Apostoli ipse autem salvus erit sic tamen quasi per ignem I hope the Roman Doctors will not deny but these are meant of Purgatory before the last day and therefore so is the opinion for the proof of which these places are brought 2. By post judicium in the title and transacto judicio in the Chapter Otho means the particular judgment passing upon every one at their death which he in a few lines after calls terminatis in judicio causis singulorum 3. He must mean it to be before the last great day because that which he says some do affirm quidam asserunt is that those which are salvandi to be sav'd hereafter are either in darkness or in a Purgatory fire which therefore must be meant of the interval for after the day of judgment is pass'd and the books shut and the sentence pronounc'd none can be sav'd that are not then acquitted unless Origens opinion of the salvation of Devils and damned souls be reintroduc'd which the Church before Otho many ages had exploded and therefore so good and great a person would not have thought that fit to be then disputed and it was not then a Question nor a thing Undetermined in the Church 4. Whether Otho means it of a Purgatory before or after the day of the last judgment it makes very much against the present Roman doctrine for Otho applies the Question to the case of infants dying without Baptism now if their Purgatory be before the day of judgment then I quoted Otho according to my own sense and his but if he means it to be after the day of judgment then the limbus infantum of the Roman Church is vanish'd for the scruple was mov'd about infants Quid de parvulis qui solo Originali delicto tenentur fiet and there is none such till after dooms day so that let it be as it will the Roman Church is a loser and therefore let them take their choice on which side they will fall But now after S. Austins time especially in the time of S. Gregory and since there were many strange stories told of souls appearing after death and telling strange things of their torments below many of which being gather'd together by the speculum exemplorum the legend of Lombardy and others some of them were noted by the Dissuasive to this purpose to shew that in the time when these stories were told the fire of Purgatory did not burn clear but they found Purgatory in baths in Eves of houses in frosts and cold rains upon spits rosting like Pigs or Geese upon pieces of Ice Now to this there is nothing said but that in the place quoted in the speculum there is no such thing which saying as it was spoken invidiously so it was to no purpose for if the objector ever hath read the distinction which is quoted throughout he should have found the whole story at large It is the 31. example page 205. Col. 1. printed at Doway 1603. And the same words are exactly in an Ancienter edition printed at the Imperial Town of Hagenaw 1519. Impensis Johannis Rynman But these Gentlemen care not for the force of any argument if they can any way put it off from being believ'd upon any foolish pretence But then as to the thing it self Post hoc apparuit eidem presbytero columna quaedam jubaris immensi cujus claritas ultra communem solis valentiam coruscare videbatur de coelâ— usque ad terram porrecta per quam anima quaedam Angelico ductu ad sydera contendebat Sciscitante verò presbytero quidnam hoc esset Respondit alter ipsa est anima Constantini quondam Judicius domini Turritani haec autem per novem annos ventis pluviis algoribus semper exposita à die exitus sui usque nunc in stillicidiâ— domus suae constitit ibique suorum excessuum poenas luit sed qui misericors liberalis in pauperes extitit judicium injuriaâ— patientibus fecit in super etiam de malis quae commisit confessa poenitens à corpore exivit idcircò misericordiam à Deo consecuta hodiernâ die meretur ab omnibus malis liberari c. Haec multa alia sacerdos ille vidit audivit de secretis alterius vitae though learned men deny the Dialogues of S. Gregory from whence many of the like stories are deriv'd to be his as Possevine confesses and Melchior Canus though a little timorously affirms yet I am willing to admit them for his but yet I cannot but note that those Dialogues have in them many foolish ridiculous and improbable stories but yet they and their like are made a great ground of Purgatory but then the right also may be done to S. Gregory his doctrine of Purgatory cannot consist with the present article of the Church of Rome so fond they are in the alledging of authorities that they destroy their own hypothesis by their undiscerning quotations For 1. S. Gregory P. affirms that which is perfectly inconsistent with the whole doctrine of Purgatory S. Greg. M. lib. 13. in Jobum c. 15. c 17. For he says That it is a fruit of our redemption by the grace of Christ our author that when we are drawn from our dwelling in the body Mox forthwith we are lead to coelestial rewards and a little after speaking of those words of Job Cum constat quod apud inferos justi non in locupoenalibus sed in superiori quietis sinu tenerentur magna nobis oâ—oritur questio quidnam sit quod B. Job asserit In profundissimum infernum descendunt omnia mea he says thus Since it is certain that in the lower region the just are not in poenal places but are held in the superior bosom of rest a great question arises what is the meaning of Blessed Job If Purgatory can stand with this hypothesis of S. Gregory then fire and water can be reconcil'd This is the doctrine of S. Gregory in his own works for whether the Dialogues under his name be his or no I shall not dispute but if I were studying to do honour to his memory I should never admit them to be his and so much the rather because the doctrine of the Dialogues contradicts the Doctrine
no purgation can no way be put off by any pretences For he means it of the time after death before the day of judgment which is directly oppos'd to the doctrine of the Church of Rome and unless you will suppose that S. Gregory believ'd two Purgatories it is certain he did not believe the Roman for he taught that the purgation which he calls Baptism by fire and the saving yet so as by fire was to be perform'd at the day of judgment and the curiosity of that trial is the fierceness of that fire as Nicetas expounds S. Gregories words in his oration in sancta lumina So that S. Gregory affirming that this world is the place of purgation and that after this world there is no purgation could not have spoken any thing more direct against the Roman Purgatory S. Hilary In Psalm and S. Macarius speak of two states after death and no more True says E. W. but they are the two final states That is true too in some sense for it is either of eternal good or evil but to one of these states they are consigned and determined at the time of their death at which time every one is sent either to the bosom of Abraham or to a place of pain where they are reserved to the sentence of the great day S. Hillary's words are these There is no stay or delaying For the day of judgement is either an eternal retribution of beatitude or of pain But the time of our death hath every one in his laws whiles either Abraham viz. the bosom of Abraham or pain reserves every one unto the Judgment These words need no Commentary He that can reconcile these to the Roman Purgatory Homil. 22. vide etiam homil 26. will be a most mighty man in controversie And so also are the words of S. Macarius when they go out of the body the quires of Angels receive their souls and carry them to their proper place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a pure world and so lead them to the Lord. Such words as these are often repeated by the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Ancient Church I sum them up with the saying of S. Athanasius De Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It is not death that happens to the righteous but a translation For they are translated out of this world into everlasting rest And as a man would go out of prison so do the Saints go out of this troublesome life unto those good things which are prepared for them Now let these and all the precedent words be confronted against the sad complaints made for the souls in Purgatory by Joh. Gerson in his querela defunctorum and Sr. Tho. More in his supplication of souls and it will be found that the doctrine of the Fathers differs from the doctrine of the Church of Rome as much as heaven and hell rest and labor horrid torments and great joy I conclude this matter of quotations by the saying of Pope Leo Letter p. 18. which one of my adversaries could not find because the printer was mistaken It is the 91. Epistle so known and so us'd by the Roman writers in the Qu. of Confession that if he be a man of learning it cannot be suppos'd but he knew where to find them The words are these But if any of them for whom we pray unto the Lord being intercepted by any obstacle falls from the benefit of the present Indulgences and before he comes to the constituted remedies shall end his temporal life by humane condition or frailty that which abiding in the body he hath not received being out of the flesh he cannot Now against these words of S. Leo set the present doctrine of the Church of Rome that what is not finished of penances here a man may pay in Purgatory and let the world judge whether S. Leo was in this point a Roman Catholic Indeed S. Leo forgot to make use of the late distinction of sins venial and mortal of the punishment of mortal sins remaining after the fault is taken away but I hope the Roman Doctors will excuse the Saint because the distinction is but new and modern But this Testimony of S. Gregory must not go for a single Testimony That which abiding in the body could not be receiv'd out of the body cannot that is when the soul is gone out of the body as death finds them so shall the day of judgment find them And this was the sense of the whole Church for after death there is no change of state before the General Trial no passing from pain to rest in the state of separation and therefore either there are no Purgatory pains or if there be there is no ease of them before the day of judgment and the Prayers and Masses of the Church cannot give remedy to one poor soul and this must of necessity be confessed by the Roman Doctors or else they must shew that ever any one Catholic Father did teach that after death and before the day of Judgment any souls are translated into a state of bliss out of a state of pain that is that from Purgatory they go to heaven before the day of Judgment He that can shew this will teach me what I have not yet learned but he that cannot shew it must not pretend that the Roman doctrine of Purgatory was ever known to the Ancient Fathers of the Church SECTION III. Of Transubstantiation THE purpose of the Dissuasive was to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be new neither Catholic nor Apostolic In order to which I thought nothing more likely to perswade or dissuade than the testimonies of the parties against themselves And although I have many other inducements as will appear in the sequel yet by so earnestly contending to invalidate the truth of the quotations the Adversaries do confess by implication if these sayings be as is pretended then I have evinc'd my main point viz. that the Roman doctrines as differing from us are novelties and no parts of the Catholic faith Thus therefore the Author of the letter begins He quotes Scotus P. 18. as declaring the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible which he saith not To the same purpose he quotes Ocham but I can finde no such thing in him To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis but he hath no such thing But in order to the verification of what I said I desire it be first observ'd what I did say for I did not deliver it so crudely as this Gentleman sets it down For 1. These words the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible are not the words of all them before nam'd they are the sense of them all but the words but of one or two of them 2. When I say that some of the Roman Writers say that Transubstantiation is not express'd in the Scripture I mean and so I said plainly as without
many ways it is a figure So that the whole force of E. W s. answer is this that if that which is like be the same then it is possible that a thing may be a sign of it's self and a man may be his own picture and that which is invisible may be a sign to give notice to come see a thing that is visible I have now expedited this topic of Authority in in this Question amongst the many reasons I urged against Transubstantiation E. W. p. 42. which I suppose to be unanswerable and if I could have answered them my self I would not have produc'd them these Gentlemen my adversaries are pleas'd to take notice but of one But by that it may be seen how they could have answered all the rest if they had pleased The argument is this every consecrated wafer saith the Church of Rome is Christs body and yet this wafer is not that wafer therefore either this or that is not Christs body or else Christ hath two natural bodies for there are two Wafers To this is answered the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies to Christ no more than head and feet infer two souls in a man or conclude there are two Gods one in heaven and the other in earth because heaven and earth are more distinct than two wafers To which I reply that the soul of man is in the head and feet as in two parts of the body which is one and whole and so is but in one place and consequently is but one soul. But if the feet were parted from the body by other bodies intermedial then indeed if there were but one soul in feet and head the Gentleman had spoken to the purpose But here these wafers are two intire wafers separate the one from the other bodies intermedial put between and that which is here is not there and yet of each of them it is affirm'd that it is Christs body that is of two wafers and of two thousand wafers it is at the same time affirm'd of every one that it is Christs body Now if these wafers are substantially not the same not one but many and yet every one of these many is substantially and properly Christs body then these bodies are many for they are many of whom it is said every one distinctly and separately and in its self is Christs body 2. For his comparing the presence of Christ in the wafer with the presence of God in heaven it is spoken without common wit or sense for does any man say that God is in two places and yet be the same-one God Can God be in two places that cannot be in one Can he be determin'd and number'd by places that fills all places by his presence or is Christs body in the Sacrament as God is in the world that is repletive filling all things alike spaces void and spaces full and there where there is no place where the measures are neither time nor place but only the power and will of God This answer besides that it is weak and dangerous is also to no purpose unless the Church of Rome will pass over to the Lutherans and maintain the Ubiquity of Christs body In Ps. 33. Yea but S. Austin says of Christ Ferebatur in manibus suis c. he bore himself in his own hands and what then Then though every wafer be Christs body yet the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies for then there would be two bodies of Christ when he carried his own body in his hands To this I answer that concerning S. Austins minde we are already satisfied but that which he says here is true as he spake and intended it for by his own rule the similitudes and figures of things are oftentimes called by the name of those things whereof they are similitudes Christ bore his own body in his own hands when he bore the Sacrament of his body for of that also it is true that it is truly his body in a Sacramental spiritual and real manner that is to all intents and purposes of the holy spirit of God According to the words of S. Austin cited by P. Lombard Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 4. in fine P. Lombard dist 11. lib. 4. ad finem lit C. We call that the body of Christ which being taken from the fruits of the Earth and consecrated by mystic prayer we receive in memory of the Lords Passion which when by the hands of men it is brought on to that visible shape it is not sanctified to become so worthy a Sacrament but by the spirit of God working invisibly If this be good Catholic doctrine and if this confession of this article be right the Church of England is right but then when the Church of Rome will not let us alone in this truth and modesty of confession but impose what is unknown in Antiquity and Scripture and against common sense and the reason of all the world Christs real and spiritual presence in the Sacrament against the doctrine of Transubstantiation printed at London by R. Royston she must needs be greatly in the wrong But as to this question I was here only to justifie the Dissuasive I suppose these Gentlemen may be fully satisfied in the whole inquiry if they please to read a book I have written on this subject intirely of which hitherto they are pleas'd to take no great notice SECTION IV. Of the half Communion WHen the French Embassador in the Council of Trent A. D. 1561. made instance for restitution of the Chalice to the Laity among other oppositions the Cardinal S. Angelo answered that he would never give a cup full of such deadly poison to the people of France instead of a medicine and that it was better to let them die than to cure them with such remedies The Embassador being greatly offended replied that it was not fit to give the name of poyson to the bloud of Christ and to call the holy Apostles poysoners and the Fathers of the Primitive Church and of that which followed for many hundred years who with much spiritual profit have ministred the cup of that bloud to all the people this was a great and a public yet but a single person that gave so great offence One of the greatest scandals that ever were given to Christendom was given by the Council of Constance Sess. 13. which having acknowledged that Christ administred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine and that in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds yet the Council not only condemns them as heretics and to be punished accordingly who say it is unlawful to observe the custome and law of giving it in one kinde only but under pain of excommunication forbids all Priests to communicate the people under both kinds This last thing is so shameful and so impious that A. L. directly denies that there is any such thing which if it
difference in the Scripture or in the Primitive Church so that though the Canon mentions only the Priest yet it must by the same reason mean all there being at that time no difference known 3. It is call'd sacriledge to divide one and the same mystery meaning that to receive one without the other is to divide the body from the bloud for the dream of concomitancy was not then found out and therefore the title of the Canon is thus express'd Corpus Christi sine ejus sanguine sacèrdos non debet accipere and that the so doing viz. by receiving one without the other cannot be without sacriledge 4. Now suppose at last that the Priests only are concern'd in this Canon yet even then also they are abundantly reprov'd because even the Priests in the Church of Rome unless they consecrate communicate but in one kind 5. It is also remarkable that although in the Church of Rome there is great use made of the distinction of its being sometime a sacrifice sometime only a sacrament as Friar Ant. Mondolphus said in the Council of Trent yet the arguments by which the Roman Doctors do usually endeavour to prove the lawfulness of the half communion do destroy this distinction viz. that of Christs ministring to the Disciples at Emaus and S. Paul in the Ship in which either there is no proof or no consecration in both kinds and consequently no sacrifice for there is mention made only of blessing the bread for they receiv'd that which was blessed and therefore either the consecration was imperfect or the reception was intire To this purpose also the words of S. Ambrose are severe and speak clearly of communicants without distinction of Priest and People which distinction though it be in this article nothing to the purpose yet I observe it to prevent such trifling cavils which my Adversaries put me often to fight with His words are these He viz. the Apostle S. Paul saith In Corinth 11. Indignum dicet esse Domino qui alitèr mysterium celebrat quam ab eo traditum est Non enim potest devotus esse qui aliter praesumit quam datum est ab Authore Ideóque praemonet ut secundum ordinem traditum devota mens sit accedentis ad Eucharistiam Domini quoniam futurum est judicium ut quemadmodum accedit unusquisque veddat causas in Die Domini Jesu Christi quia sine disciplinâ traditionis conversationis qui accedunt rei sunt corporis sanguinis Domini that he is unworthy of the Lord who otherwise celebrates the mystery than it was deliver'd by him For he cannot be devout that presumes otherwise than it was given by the Author Therefore he before admonishes that according to the order delivered the mind of him that comes to the Eucharist of our Lord be devout for there is a judgment to come that as every one comes so he may render an account in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ because they who come without the discipline of the delivery or tradition and of conversation are guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord. One of my Adversaries says these words of S. Ambrose are to be understood only of the Priest A. L. p 4. and it appears so by the word celebrat not recipit he that celebrates otherwise than is delivered by Christ. To this I answer that first it is plain and S. Ambrose so expresses his meaning to be of all that receive it for so he says that the mind of him that cometh to the Eucharist of our Lord ought to be devout 2. It is an ignorant conceit that S. Ambrose by celebrat means the Priest only because he only can celebrate For however the Church of Rome does now almost impropriate that word to the Priest yet in the Primitive Church it was no more than recipit or accedit ad Eucharistiam which appears not only by S. Ambrose his expounding it so here Serm. 1. de eleemos but in S. Cyprian speaking to a rich Matron Locuples dives Dominicum celebrare te credis corban omnino non respicis Doest thou who art rich and opulent suppose that you celebrate the Lords Supper or sacrifice who regardest not the poor mans basket Celebrat is the word and receive must needs be the signification and so it is in S. Ambrose and therefore I did as I ought translate it so 3. It is yet objected that I translate aliter quam ab eo traditum est otherwise than he appointed whereas it should be otherwise than it was given by him And this surely is a great matter and the Gentleman is very subtle But if he be ask'd whether or no Christ appointed it to be done as he did to be given as he gave it I suppose this deep and wise note of his will just come to nothing But ab eo traditum est of it self signifies appointed for this he deliver'd not only by his hands but by his commandment of Hoc facite that was his appointment Now that all this relates to the whole institution and doctrine of Christ in this matter and therefore to the duplication of the Elements the reception of the chalice as well as the consecrated bread appears first by the general terms qui aliter mysterium celebrat he that celebrates otherwise than Christ delivered 2. These words are a Commentary upon that of Saint Paul He that eats this bread and drinks the Cup of the Lord Unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. Now hence S. Ambrose arguing that all must be done as our Lord delivered says also that the bread must be eaten and the cup drunk as our Lord delivered and he that does not do both does not do what our Lord delivered 3. The conclusion of S. Ambrose is full to this particular They are guilty of the body and bloud of Christ who came without the discipline of the delivery and of conversation that is they who receive without due preparation and not after the manner it was delivered that is under the differing symbols of bread and wine To which we may add that observation of Cassander Disp. 5. de sacra coena and of Vossius that the Apostles represented the persons of all the faithful Christ saying to them take eate he also said Drink ye all of this he said not Eat ye all of this and therefore if by vertue of these words Drink ye all of this the Laity be not commanded to drink it can never be proved that the Laity are commanded to eat Omnes is added to bibite but it is not expresly added to Accipite Comedite Lib. de corp sang Domini cap. 15. and therefore Paschasius Radbertus who lived about eight hundred and twenty years after Christs incarnation so expounds the precept without any haesitation Bibite ex hoc omnes i. e. tam Ministri quam reliqui credentes Drink ye all of this as
expertis Dei simulachrum effingere queat De fide symbole c. 7. Extremae itaque dementiae atque impietatis fuerit Divinum numen fingere figurare Damasc. lib. 4. This is the principle to confute the Doctor Orthod fidei cap. 17. why but the Doctor thinks that in the world there cannot be clearer words for the reproof of picturing God and the Holy Trinity For to do so is madness and extreme impiety so says Damascen But stay says E. W. E. W. pag. 60. these words of Damascen are as who should say He that goes about to express by any image the perfect similitude of Gods intrinsecal perfections or his Nature which is immense without body or figure would be both impious and act the part of a Mad-man But how shall any man know that these words of Damascen are as much as to say this meaning of E. W. and where is this principle as he calls it of Damascen by which the Doctor is so every where silenc'd Certainly E. W. is a merry Gentleman and thinks all mankind are fools This is the ridiculous Commentary of E. W. but Damascen was too learned and grave a person to talk such wild stuff And Cardinal Cajetan gives a better account of the doctrine of Damascen Authoritas Damasceni in literâ damnat illas imagines Dei insâ—pientiae impietatis Et eadem est ratio nunc de Deitate quae erat in veteri 〈◊〉 quoad rem figâ—rabilem vel non secundum se. Constat autem in veteri lege imagines Dei esse prohibitas The Authority of Damascen in the very letter of it condemns those images viz. of God of folly and impiety And there is the same reason now concerning the Deity which was in the old law And it is certain that in the old law the images of God were forbidden Videat si placet lector Lucum Eudensem adv Albig error l. 2. c. 9. To the like purpose is that of the famous Germanus who though too favourable to pictures in Churches for veneration yet he is a great enemy to all pictures of God Neque enim invisibilis Deitatis imaginem Tom. 4. Bibl. p. p. part 2. similitudinem vel schema vel figuram aliquam formamus c. as who please may see in his Epistle to Thomas Bishop of Claudiopolis Apud Nicen. But let us consider when God forbad the children of Israel to make any likeness of him Synod 11. Act. 5. did he only forbid them to express by any image the perfect similitude of his intrinsecal perfections Had the children of Israel leave to picture God in the form of a man walking in Paradise Or to paint the Holy Trinity like three men talking to Abraham Was it lawful for them to make an image or picture or to use E. W. his expression to exhibit to their eyes those visible or circumscribed lineaments which any man had seen And when they had exhibited these forms to the eyes might they then have fallen down and worshipped those forms which themselves exhibited to their own and others eyes I omit to enquire how they can prove that God appear'd in Paradise in the form of a man which they can never do unless they will use the Friers argument Faciamus hominem ad similitudinem nostram c. and so make fair way for the Heresie of the Anthropomorphites But I pass on a little further Did the Israelites when they made a molten calf and said These are thy Gods O Israel did they imagine that by that image they represented the true form essence or nature of God Or did the Heathens ever pretend to make any image of the intrinsecal perfections of any of their Majores or Minores Dii or any of their Daemons and dead Heroes And because they neither did nor could do that may it therefore be concluded that they made no images of their Gods Certain it is the Heathens have as much reason to say they did not picture their Gods meaning their nature and essence but by symbolical forms and shapes represented those good things which they suppos'd them to have done Thus the Egyptians pictur'd Joseph with a Bushel upon his head and called him their God Serapis but they made no image of his essence but symbolically represented the benefit he did the nation by preserving them in the seven years famine Thus Ceres is painted with a Hook and a Sheaf of corn Pomona with a Basket of Apples Hercules with a Club and Jupiter himself with a handful of symbolical Thunderbolts This is that which the Popish Doctors call picturing God not in his Essence but in history or in symbolical shapes For of these three ways of picturing God Bellarmine says the two last are lawful And therefore the Heathens not doing the first but the second and the third only are just so to be excused as the Church of Rome is But then neither these nor those must pretend that they do not picture God For whatever the intention be Observandum est tribus moâ—iâ— posse aliquid pingi Vno modo ad â—xpriâ— mendam perfectam similitudinem formulae naturae rei ipsius Altero modo ad historiam aliquam oculis exhibendam Tertio potest aliquid pingi extra historiam ad explicandam naturam rei non per immediatam propriam similitudinem sed analogiam sive metaphoricâ— mystiâ—asque significationes Beâ— de imag lib. 2. c. 8. Sect. pro solutione Hoc modo pingimus Deum ibid. Sect. Hoc modo still an image of God is made or else why do they worship God by that which if it be no image of God must by their own doctrine be an Idol And therefore Bellarmines distinction is very foolish and is only crafty to deceive for besides the impertinency of it in answering the charge only by declaring his intention as being charged with picturing God he tells he did it indeed but he meant not to paint his nature but his story or his symbolical significations which I say is impertinent it not being inquir'd with what purpose it is done but whether or no and an evil thing may be done with a good intention Besides this I say that Bellarmines distinction comes just to this issue God may be painted or represented by an image not to express a perfect similitude of his form or nature but to express it imperfectly or rather not to express it but ad explicandam naturam to explain it not to describe him truly but historically though that be a strange history that does not express truly and as it is But here it is plainly acknowledged that besides the history the very Nature of God may be explicated by pictures or images provided they be only metaphorical and mystical as if the only reason of the lawfulness of painting God is because it is done imperfectly and unlike him or as if the metaphor made the image lawful just as if to do