would not be amongst them so much modesty as to abstain from the most absolute triumph and the fiercest declamations In the mean time our safety in this Article also is visible and notorious Against the saying of Saint Ambrose which in the Preface to the first part I brought to reprove this practice those who thought themselves oblig'd to object will find the quotation justified in the Section of the Half-Communion to which I referre the Reader 7. What a strange Uncharitableness is it to believe and teach that poor babes descending from Christian Parents if they die unbaptized shall never see the face of God and that of such is not the Kingdom of Heaven The Church of England enjoyns the Parents to bring them and her Priests to baptize them and punishes the neglect where it is criminal and yet teaches no such fierce and uncharitable proposition which can serve no end but what may with less damage and affrightment be very well secur'd and to distrust God's goodness to the poor Infants whose fault it could not be that they were not baptized and to amerce their no-fault with so great a fine even the loss of all the good which they could receive from him that created them and loves them is such a playing with Heads and a regardless treatment of Souls that for charity sake and common humanity we dare not mingle in their Counsels But if we erre it is on the safer side it is on the one side of mercy and charity These seven particulars are not trifling considerations but as they have great influence into the event of Souls so they are great parts of the Roman Religion as they have pleased to order Religion at this day I might instance in many more if I thought it necessary or did not fear they would think me inquisitive for objections therefore I shall add no more only I profess my self to wonder at the obstinacy of the Roman Prelates that will not consent that the Liturgy of their Church should be understood by the people They have some pretence of politick reason why they forbid the translation of the Scriptures though all wise men know they have other reasons than what they pretend yet this also would be considered that if the people did read the Scriptures and would use that liberty well they might receive infinite benefit by them and that if they did abuse that liberty it were the Peoples fault and not the Rulers but that they are forbidden that is the Rulers fault and not the Peoples But for prohibiting the understanding of their publick and sometimes of many of their private devotions there can be no plausible pretence no excuse of policy no end of piety and if the Church of England be not in this also of the surer side then we know nothing but all the reason of all man-kind is faln asleep Well however these things have at least very much probability in them yet for professing these things according to the Scriptures and Catholick tradition and right Reason as will be further demonstrated in the following paragraphs they call us Hereticks and sentence us with damnation Suarezius and Bellarmine confesse that to believe Transubstantiation is not absolutely necessary to salvation with damnation I say for not worshipping of Images for not calling the Sacramental Bread our God Saviour for not teaching for doctrines the Commandements of men for not equalling the sayings of men to the sayings of God for not worshipping Angels for not putting trust in Saints and speaking to dead persons who are not present for offering to desire to receive the Communion as Christ gave it to his Disciples they to all to whom they preach'd If these be causes of damnation what shall become of them that do worship Images and that do take away half of the Sacrament from the people to whom Christ left it and keep knowledge from them and will not suffer the most of them to pray with the Understanding and worship Angels and make dead men their Guardians and erect Altars and make Vows and give consumptive Offerings to Saints real or imaginary Now truly we know not what shall become of them but we pray for them as men not without hope only as long as we can we repeat the words of our Blessed Saviour He that breaks one of the least Commandments Matth. 5. 19. and teaches men so shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven SECTION IX That the Church of Rome does teach for Doctrines the Commandements of Men. THe former Charge hath occasion'd this which is but an instance of their adding to the Christian Faith new Articles upon their own authority And here first I shall represent what is intended in the reproof which our Blessed Saviour made of the Pharisees saying They taught for doctrines the Commandements of men And 2. I shall prove that the Church of Rome is guilty of it and the Church of England is not 1. The words of our Blessed Saviour are to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Conjunctively that is In vain do ye worship me Matth. 15. 9. teaching doctrines and Commandements of men that is things which men only have deliver'd and if these once be esteemed to be a worshipping of God it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a vain worship Now this express'd it self in two degrees The first was in over-valuing humane ordinances that is equalling them to Divine Commandments exacting them by the same measures by which they require obedience to God's laws and this with a pretended zeal for God's honour and service Thus the Pharisees were noted and reproved by our Blessed Saviour 1. The things of decency or indifferent practices were counselled by their Forefathers in process of time they became approved by use and Custom and then their Doctors denied their Communion to them that omitted them found out new reasons for them were severe in their censures concerning the causes of their omission would approve none no not the cases and exceptions of charity or piety And this is instanc'd in their washings of cups and platters and the outside of dishes which either was at first instituted for cleanliness and decency or else as being symbolical to the Purifications in the Law but they chang'd the Scene enjoyn'd it as necessity were scandalized at them that us'd it not practis'd it with a frequency passing into an intolerable burden insomuch that at the marriage of Cana in Galilee there were six water-Pots set after the manner of the Purification of the Jews because they washed often in the time of their meals and then they put new reasons and did it for other causes than were in the first institution And although these washings might have been used without violation of any Commandment of God yet even by this Tradition they made Gods Commandment void by making this necessary and imposing these useless and unnecessary burdens on their brethren by making snares for Consciences
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
well they that Minister as the rest of the believers And no wonder since for their so doing they have the example and institution of Christ by which as by an irrefragable and undeniable argument the Ancient Fathers us'd to reprove and condemn all usages which were not according to it For saith Saint Cyprian If men ought not to break the least of Christs commandments Epist. 63. how much less those great ones which belong to the Sacrament of our Lords passion and redemption or to change it into any thing but that which was appointed by him Now this was spoken against those who refus'd the hallowed wine but took water instead of it and it is of equal force against them that give to the Laity no cup at all but whatever the instance was or could be S. Cyprian reproves it upon the only account of prevaricating Christs institution The whole Epistle is worth reading for a full satisfaction to all wise and sober Christians Ab eo quod Christus Magister praecepit gessit humana novella institutione decedere by a new and humane institution to depart from what Christ our Master commanded and did that the Bishops would not do tamen quoniam quidam c. because there are some who simply and ignorantly In calice Dominico sanctificando plebi ministrando non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus Deus noster sacrificii hujus author Doctor fecit docuit c. In sanctifying the cup of the Lord and giving it to the people do not do what Jesus Christ did and taught viz. they did not give the cup of wine to the people therefore S. Cyprian calls them to return ad radicem originem traditionis Dominicae to the root and original of the Lords delivery Now besides that S. Cyprian plainly says that when the chalice was sanctified it was also ministred to the people I desire it be considered whether or no these words do not plainly reprove the Roman doctrine and practice in not giving the consecrated chalice to the people Do they not recede from the root and original of Christs institution Do they do what Christ did Do they teach what Christ taught Is not their practice quite another thing than it was at first Did not the Ancient Church do otherwise than these men do And thought themselves oblig'd to do otherwise They urg'd the doctrine and example of our Lord and the whole Oeconomy of the Mystery was their warrant and their reason for they always believed that a peculiar grace and vertue was signified by the symbol of wine and it was evident that the chalice was an excellent representment and memorial of the effusion of Christs bloud for us and the joyning both the symbols signifies the intire refection and nourishment of our souls bread and drink being the natural provisions and they design and signifie our redemption more perfectly the body being given for our bodies and the bloud for the cleansing our souls the life of every animal being in the bloud and finally this in the integrity signifies and represents Christ to have taken body and soul for our redemption For these reasons the Church of God always in all her publick communions gave the chalice to the people for above a thousand years This was all I would have remarked in this so evident a matter but that I observed in a short spiteful passage of E. W. Pag. 44. a notorious untruth spoken with ill intent concerning the Holy Communion as understood by Protestants The words are these seeing the fruit of Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith in the receiver I can find no reason why their bit of bread only may not as well work that effect as to taste of their wine with it To these words 1. I say that although stirring up faith is one of the Divine benefits and blessings of the Holy Communion yet it is falsely said that the fruit of the Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith For in the Catechism of the Church of England it is affirmed that the body and bloud of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lords Supper and that our souls are strengthened and refreshed by the body and bloud of Christ as our bodies are by the bread and wine and that of stirring up our faith is not at all mentioned So ignorant so deceitful or deceiv'd is E. W. in the doctrine of the Church of England But then as for his foolish sarcasm calling the hallowed Element a bit of bread which he does in scorn he might have considered that if we had a mind to find fault whenever his Church gives us cause that the Papists wafer is scarce so much as a bit of bread it is more like Marchpane than common bread and besides that as Salmeron acknowledges anciently Salmer in 11. Cor. 10. disp 17. pag. 138. Olim ex pane uno sua cuique particula frangi consueverat that which we in our Church do was the custom of the Church out of a great loaf to give particles to every communicant by which the Communication of Christs body to all the members is better represented Durand ration Divin offic l. 4. c. 53. and that Durandus affirming the same thing says that the Grecians continue it to this day besides this I say the Author of the Roman order says Cassander took it very ill Cassand liturg c. 27. Sect. Et cum mensa that the loaves of bread offered in certain Churches for the use of the sacrifice should be brought from the form of true bread to so slight and slender a form which he calls Minutias nummulariarum oblatarum scraps of little penies or pieces of money and not worthy to be called bread being such which no Nation ever used at their meals for bread But this is one of the innovations which they have introduc'd into the religious Rites of Christianity and it is little noted they having so many greater changes to answer for But it seems this Section was too hot for them they loved not much to meddle with it and therefore I shall add no more fuel to their displeasure but desire the Reader who would fully understand what is fit to be said in this Question Lib. 2. Chap. 3. Rule 9. to read it in a book of mine which I called Ductor dubitantium or the Cases of Conscience only I must needs observe that it is an unspeakable comfort to all Protestants when so manifestly they have Christ on their side in this Question against the Church of Rome To which I only add that for above 700. years after Christ it was esteemed sacriledge in the Church of Rome to abstain from the Cup and that in the ordo Romanus the Communion is always describ'd with the Cup how it is since and how it comes to be so is too plain But it seems the Church hath power to dispense in this
in interpretations differing from those that went before them and in the Synod in Trullo * Canon 19. ex divinâ scripturâ Colligentes intelligentias all Curates of souls were commanded to interpret Scriptures so as not to transgress the bounds and tradition of the fathers and the same was the way taken in the Council of Vienna and commanded since in the Lateran under Leo the tenth and at last in Trent yet all this was but good advice which when the following Doctors pretended to follow they nevertheless still took their liberty and went their own way and if they followed some of the Fathers they receded from many others for none of them esteem'd the way infallible but they that did not think their own way better left their own reason and followed their authority But of late knowledge is increased at least many writers think so and though the Ancient interpretations were more honoured In Epist. ad Rom. 5 disp 51 p. 468. than new yet Salmeron says plainly that the younger Doctors are better sighted and more perspicacious And the Question being about the conception of the Blessed Virgin without original sin against which a multitude of fathers are brought the Jesuit answers the argument with the words in Exodus 23. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to sin And to the same purpose S. Austin answered the Donatists L. â—â—ntr Donat. But of this I shall afterwards have occasion to speak more particularly In the mean time it must needs be acknowledged that the Protestants cannot more slight the Fathers than the Jesuites do and divers other Doctors of the Church of Rome though I think both of them do equally think them to be fallible Well! but at last of what use are the Fathers to Protestants in their writings And what use do I or can I make of them in my Dissuasive First for the Protestants the Church of England can very well account by her Canon in which she follows the Council in Trullo and the sixth General Synod and ties her Doctors as much as the Council of Trent does to expound Scriptures according to the sense of the Ancient Fathers and indeed it is the best way for most Men and it is of great use to all men so to do For the Fathers were good men and learned and interest and partiality and error had not then invaded the world so much as they have since done The Papacy that great fountain of error and servile learning had not so debaucht the world and all that good which can be supposed could be ministred by the piety and learning of so many excellent persons all that we can use and we do make use of it upon all just occasions They speak reason and religion in their writings and when they do so we have reason to make use of the good things which by their labours God intended to convey to us They were better than other men and wiser than most men and their Authority is not at all contemptible but in most things highly to be valued And is at the worst a very probable inducement Are not the books of the Canonists and Casuists in a manner little else than a heap of quotations out of their predecessors writings Certainly we have much more reason to value the authority of the Ancient Fathers And now since I. S. requires an account from me in particular and thinks I have no right to use them Pag. 312. I shall render him an account of this also But first let us see what his charge is He says indeed I tell him that the Fathers are a good testimony of the doctrine delivered from their Forefathers down to them of what the Church esteemed the way of salvation I did tell them so indeed and in the same place I said that we admit the Fathers as admirable helps for the understanding of the Scriptures I told them both these things together and therefore I. S. may blush with shame for telling us that it appears by the Dissuader that the Protestants do not acknowledge the Fathers infallible or useful But then in what degree of usefulness the Fathers are admitted by us we may perceive by the instances of which the one being the interpretation of Scriptures it is evident because of their great variety and contrariety of interpretations we do not admit them as infallible but yet of admirable use so in the testimony which they give of the doctrines of their forefathers concerning the way of salvation we give as great credit as can be due to any relator except him that is infallible Pro magno teste vetustas Creditur â—vid acceptam parce movere fidem Nay we go something further for although in asserting and affirming in teaching and delivering positively we do believe them with great veneration but not without liberty and inquiry yet when we make use of them in a negative way we find use of them much nearer to infallibility than all the demonstrations of surefooting For the argument lies thus Chap. 1. Sect. 1 Dissuasive In the ages succeeding the three first secular interest did much prevail the writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous full of controversie and ambiguous senses fitted to their own times and questions full of proper opinions and such variety of sayings that both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively This ground I lay of the ensuing argument and upon this I build immediately That things being thus that is in the ages succeeding the first three the primitive and purest the case being so vastly changed the books so vast the words so many the opinions so proper the contrariety so apparent it is very possible that two litigants shall from them pretend words serving their distinct hypothesis especially when they come to wrangle about the interpretations of ambiguous sayings and of things so disputed there can be no end no determination And therefore it will be impossible for the Roman Doctors to conclude from the sayings of a number of Fathers viz. in the latter and succeeding ages of the Church for of them only the argument does treat that their doctrine which they would prove thence was the Catholic doctrine of the Church And the reason of this is deriv'd from the ground I laid for the argument because these Fathers are oftentimes gens contra gentem and sometimes one man against himself and sometimes changing his doctrine and sometimes speaking in heat and disputing fiercely and striving by all means to prevail and conquer heretics and therefore a testimony of many of them consenting is not a sufficient argument to prove a doctrine Catholic unless all consent in this case the major part will not prove a doctrine Catholic Of this I have given divers instances already and shall add more in the Section of Tradition for the present I shall only recite the words of the Bishop of the Canaries a great Man amongst them to attest
Concilio Generali praesidens and the 3d. Council of Toledo in the 18th Chapter uses this mandatory form Praecipit haec sancta Vniversalis Synodus 3 But if we will suppose a Catachrêsis in this style and that this title of Vniversal means but a Particular that is an Universal of that place though this be a hard expression because the most particular or local Councils are or may be universal to that place yet this may be pardon'd since it is like the Catholick Roman style that is the manner of speaking in the Universal particular Church but after all this it will be very hard in good Earnest to tell which Councils are indeed Universal or General Councils Bellarmine reckons eighteen from Nicene to Trent inclusively so that the Council of Florence is the sixteenth and yet Pope Clement the seventh calls it the eighth General and is reproved for it by Surius who for all the Pope's infallibility pretended to know more than the Pope would allow The last Lateran Council viz. the fifth is at Rome esteem'd a General Council In Germany and France it passes for none at all but a faction and pack of Cardinals 4. There are divers General Councils that though they were such yet they are rejected by almost all the christian world It ought not to be said that these are not General Councils because they were conventions of heretical persons for if a Council can consist of heretical persons as by this instance it appears it may then a General Council is no sure rule or ground of faith And all those Councils which Bellarmin calls reprobate are as so many proofs of this For what ever can be said against the Council of Ariminum yet they cannot say but it consisted of DC Bishops and therefore it was as general as any ever was before it but the faults that are found with it prove indeed that it is not to be accepted but then they prove two things more First That a General Council binds not till it be accepted by the Churches and therefore that all its authority depends on them and they do not depend upon it And secondly that there are some General Councils which are so far from being infallible that they are directly false schismatical and heretical And if when the Churches are divided in a question and the communion like the Question is in flux and reflux when one side prevails greatly they get a General Council on their side and prevail by it but lose as much when the other side play the same game in the day of their advantages And it will be to no purpose to tell me of any Collateral advantages that this Council hath more than another Council for though I believe so yet others do not and their Council is as much a General Council to them as our Council is to us And therefore if General Councils are the rule and law of faith in those things they determine then all that is to be considered in this affair is Whether they be General Councils Whether they say true or no is not now the question but is to be determin'd by this viz. whether are they General Councils or no for relying upon their authority for the truth if they be satisfied that they are General Councils that they speak and determine truth will be consequent and allowed Now then if this be the question then since divers General Councils are reprobated the consequent is that although they be General Councils yet they may be reprov'd And if a Catholick producing the Nicene Council be r'encontred by an Arian producing the Council of Ariminum which was farre more numerous here are aquilis aquilae pila minantia pilis but who shall prevail If a General Council be the rule and guide they will both prevail that is neither And it ought not to be said by the Catholick Yea but our Council determin'd for the truth but yours for errour for the Arian will say so too But whether they do or no yet it is plain that they may both say so and if they do then we do not find the truth out by the conduct and decision of a General Council but we approve this General because upon other accounts we believe that what is there defin'd is true And therefore S. Austin's way here is best Neque ego Nicenum Concilium neque tu Ariminense c. both sides pretend to General Councils that which both equally pretend to will help neither therefore let us go to Scripture But there are amongst many others two very considerable instances by which we may see plainly at what rate Councils are declar'd General A. D. 755. There was a Council held at C. P. under Constantinus Copronymus of 338 Bishops It was in that unhappy time when the question of worshipping or breaking images was disputed A D. 786. aut 789. This Council commanded images to be destroyed out of Churches and this was a General Council and yet 26 or as some say 31 years after this was condemned by another General Council viz. the second at Nice which decreed images to be worshipped not long after about five years this General Council of Nice for that very reason was condemned by a General Council of Francford and generally by the Western Churches Now of what value is a General Council to the determination of questions of faith when one General Council condemns another General Council with great liberty and without scruple And it is to no purpose to allege reasons or excuses why this or that Council is condemn'd for if they be General and yet may without reason be condemn'd then they have no authority but if they be condemned with reason then they are not infallible The other instance is in those Councils which were held when the dispute began between the Council and the Pope The Council of Constance consisting of almost a thousand Fathers first and last defin'd the Council to be above the Pope the Council of Florence and the fift Council in the Lateran have condemn'd this Council so far as to that article The Council of Basil all the world knows how greatly they asserted their own Authority over the Pope but therefore though in France it is accepted yet in Italy and Spain it is not But what is the meaning that some Councils are partly approv'd and partly condemned the Council of Sardis that in Trullo those of Francfort Constance and Basil but that every man and every Church accepts the General Councils as far as they please and no further The Greeks receive but seven General Councils the Lutherans receive six the Eutychians in Asia receive but the first three the Nestorians in the East receive but the first two the Anti-trinitarians in Hungary and Poland receive none The Church of England receives the four first Generals as of highest regard not that they are infallible but that they have determin'd wisely and holily Pro captu lectoris habent sua fata It
Turris to go Hist. Concil Trid. lib. 7 ◠D. 156◠because he had been too free in declaring his opinion for the Jus Divinum of the Residence of Bishops he at the same time durst not trust the Bishop of Cesena for a more secret reason but it was known enough to many He was a familiar friend of the Cardinal of Naples whose Father the Count of Montebello had in his hand an Obligation which that Pope had given to the Cardinal for a sum of money for his Voice in the Election of him to the Papacy And all the world have been full of noises and Pasquils sober and grave Comical and Tragical accusations of the Simony of the Popes for divers ages together and since no man can certainly know that the Pope is not Simoniacal no man can safely rely on him as a true Pope or the true Pope for an infallible Judge 2. If the Pope be a Heretick he is ipso facto no Pope now that this is very possible Bellarmine supposes because he makes that one of the necessary cases in which a General Council is to be called as I have shewed above And this uncertainty is manifest in an instance that can never be wip'd off for when Liberius had subscrib'd Arianism and the condemnation of S. Athasius and the Roman Clergy had depriv'd Liberius of his Papacy S. Felix was made Pope and then either Liberius was no Pope or S. Felix was not and one was a Heretick or the other a Schismatick and then as it was hard to tell who was their Churches head so it was impossible that by adherence to either of them their subjects could be prov'd to be Catholicks 3. There have been many Schisms in the Church of Rome and many Anti-popes which were acknowledged for true and legitimate by several Churches and Kingdoms respectively and some that were chosen into the places of the depos'd even by Councils were a while after disown'd and others chosen which was a known case in the times of the Councils of Constance and Basil. And when a Council was sitting and it became a Question who had power to chuse the Council or the Cardinals What man could cast his hopes of Eternity upon the adherence to one the certainty of whose legitimation was determin'd by power and interest and could not by all the learning and wisdom of Christendom 4. There was one Pope who was made head of the Church before he was a Priest It was Constantine the second who certainly succeeded not in S. Peter's Privileges when he was not capable of his Chair and yet he was their head of the Church for a year but how adherence to the Pope should then be a note of the Church I desire to know from some of the Roman Lawyers for the Divines know it not I will not trouble this account with any questions about the Female-head of their Church I need not seek for matter I am press'd with too much and therefore I shall omit very many other considerations about the nullities and insufficiencies and impieties and irregularities of many Popes and consider their other notes of the Church to try if they can fix this inquiry upon any certainty Bellarmine reckons fifteen notes of the Church It is a mighty hue and cry after a thing that he pretends is visible to all the world 1. The very name Catholick is his first note he might as well have said the word Church is a note of the Church for he cannot be ignorant but that all Christians who esteem themselves members of the Church think and call themselves members of the Catholick Church and the Greeks give the same title to their Churches Nay all Conventions of Hereticks anciently did so and therefore I shall quit Bellarmine of this note by the words of Lactantius which himself * Bellarm. l. 4. de Notis Eccles. cap. 1. Lact. lib. 3. Divinar institut cap. ult also a little forgetting himself quotes Sed tamen singuli quique Haereticorum coetus se potissimum Christianos suam esse Catholicam Ecclesiam putant 2. Antiquity indeed is a note of the Church and Salmeron proves it to be so from the Example of Adam and Eve most learnedly But it is certain that God had a Church in Paradise is as good an argument for the Church of England and Ireland as for Rome for we derive from them as certainly as do the Italians and have as much of Adam's religion as they have But a Church might have been very ancient and yet become no Church and without separating from a greater Church The Church of the Jews is the great example and the Church of Rome unless she takes better heed may be another Rom. 11. 20 21. S. Paul hath plainly threatned it to the Church of Rome 3. Duration is made a note now this respects the time past or the time to come If the time past then the Church of Britain was Christian before Rome was and blessed be God are so at this day If Duration means the time to come for so Bellarmine says Denotis Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 6. Ecclesia dicitur Catholica non solùm quia semper fuit sed etiam quia semper erit so we have a rare note for us who are alive to discern the Church of Rome to be the Catholick Church and we may possibly come to know it by this sign many ages after we are dead because she will last always But this sign is not yet come to pass and when it shall come to pass it will prove our Church to be the Catholick Church as well as that of Rome and the Greek Church as well as both of us for these Churches at least some of them have begun sooner and for ought they or we know they all may so continue longer 4. Amplitude was no note of the Church when the world was Arian and is as little now because that a great part of Europe is Papal 5. Succession of Bishops is an excellent conservatory of Christian doctrine but it is as notorious in the Greek Church as in the Roman and therefore cannot signifie which is the true Church unless they be both true and then the Church of England can claim by this tenure as having since her being Christian a succession of Bishops never interrupted but as all others have been in persecution 6. Consent in doctrine with the Ancient Church may be a good sign or a bad as it happens but the Church of Rome hath not and never can prove the pure and prime Antiquity to be of her side 7. Vnion of members among themselves and with their head is very good if the members be united in truth for else it may be a Conspiracy and if by head be meant Jesus Christ and indeed this is the onely true sign of the Church but if by head be meant the Roman Pope it may be Ecclesia Malignantium and Antichrist may sit in the chair But the uncertainty
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
difference S. Basil here declar'd that as formerly he had it always fixt in mind to fly every voice every sentence which is a stranger to the doctrine of the Lord so now also at this time Ibidem in seqâ—entibus viz. when he was to set down the whole Christian Faith Neither can there be hence any escaping by saying * Truth will out pag. 3. that nothing indeed is to be added to the Scriptures but yet to the faith something is to be reckoned which is not in Scripture For although the Church of Rome does that also putting more into the Canon than was among the Jews acknowledged or by the Primitive Church of Christians yet besides this S. Basil having having said Vbi supra Whatsoever is not in the Scriptures is not of faith and therefore it is a sin he says also by certain consequence That to add to the Scriptures is all one as to add to the Faith And therefore he exhorts even the Novices to study the Scriptures In Regul brev reg 95. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to his 95th question Whether it be fit for Novices presently to learn the things of the Scripture he answers It is right and it is necessary that those things which appertain to use every one should learn from the Scriptures both for the replenishing of their mind with piety as also that they may not be accustomed to humane traditions By which words he not onely declares that by the Scriptures our minds are abundantly fill'd with piety but that humane traditions by which he means every thing that is not contain'd in Scripture are not to be receiv'd but ought to be and are best of all banish'd from our minds by entertaining of Scripture To the same purpose are his words in his Ethicks Moral Regul 26. Whatsoever we say or do ought to be confirm'd by the testimony of Divinity inspired by Scriptures both for the full persuasion of the good and the confusion or damnation of evil things There 's your rule that 's the ground of all true faith And therefore S. Athanasius speaking concerning the Nicene Council Epist. ad Epicteâ—um Corinthiorum Episc. made no scruple that the question was sufficiently determin'd concerning the proper Divinity of the Son of God because it was determin'd and the faith was expounded according to the Scriptures and affirms that the faith so determin'd was sufficient for the reproof of all impiety meaning in the Article of Christ's Divinity and for the establishment of the Orthodox faith in Christ. De Incarnat Nay he affirms that the Catholick Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written Which words I the rather remark Idem Athanas. in Exhort ad Monachos because this Article of the Consubstantiality of Christ with the Father is brought as an instance by the Romanists of the necessity of tradition to make up the insufficiency of Scripture But not in this onely but for the preaching of the truth indefinitely Moral contra Gentiles in 〈◊〉 that is the whole truth of the Gospel he affirms the Scriptures to be sufficient For writing to Macarius a Priest of Alexandria he tells him that the knowledge of true and divine religion and piety does not much need the ministery of man and that he might abundantly draw this forth from the divine books and letters for truly the holy and divinely-inspir'd Scriptures are sufficient for the preaching of the truth Coloniae ex officâ—â— Melcâ—â—â—â—â— Novefiani 1548. ad omnem instructionem veritatis so the Latine Translation for the whole instruction of truth or the instruction of all truth But because Macarius desir'd rather to hear others teach him this doctrine and true religion than himself to draw it from Scripture S. Athanasius tells him that there are many written monuments of the Holy Fathers and our masters which if men will diligently read over he shall learn the interpretation of Scriptures and obtain that notion of truth which he desires Which is perfectly the same advice which the Church of England commands her Sons that they shall teach nothing but what the Fathers and Doctors of the Church draw forth from Scriptures The same principal doctrine in the whole is taught frequently by S. Chrysostom Homil. 58. 〈◊〉 Johan who compares the Scriptures to a Door which is shut to hinder the hereticks from entring in and introduce us to God and to the knowledge of God This surely is sufficient if it does this it does all that we need and if it does not S. Chrysostom was greatly deceiv'd and so are we and so were all the Church of God in all the first ages But he is constant in the same affirmative Homil 9. in 2 Timoth. If there be need to learn or to be ignorant thence we shall learn it Idem in Psal. 95. versus finem if to confute or argue that which is false thence we shall draw it if to be corrected or chastis'd to exhortation if any thing be wanting for our comfort and that we ought to have it nevertheless from thence from the Scriptures we learn it That the man be perfect therefore without it he cannot be perfected In stead of me he saith thou hast the Scriptures if thou desirest to learn any thing hence thou mayest But if he writes these things to Timothy who was fill'd with the holy Spirit how much more must we think these things spoken to us To the same purpose he discourses largely in his eighth Homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews Homil. 9. in Coloss. in 2 Thess. 2. which is here too long to transcribe Let no man look for another master Homil. 49. in Matth. 23. oper imperfecti Thou hast the Oracles of God No man teaches thee like to them Because ever since heresie did infest those Churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge for Christians who would know the truth of faith but that of the Divine Scripture but now by no means is it known by them who would know which is the true Church of Christ but onely by the Scriptures De verbo Dei l. 4. c. 11. Sect. Sextò profert Bellarmine very learnedly sayes that these words were put into this book by the Arians but because he offers at no pretence of reason for any such interpolation and it being without cause to suspect it though the Author of it had been an Arian because the Arians were never noted to differ from the Church in the point of the Scriptures sufficiency I look upon this as a pitiful shift of a man that resolved to say any thing rather than confess his errour And at last he concludes with many words to the same purpose Our Lord therefore knowing what confusion of things would be in the
to come but Christ is the substance And yet after all this The keeping of the Lord's-day was no law in Christendom till the Laodicean-Council but the Jewish Sabbath was kept as strictly as the Chrisian Lord's-day and yet both of them with liberty but with an intuition to the avoiding offence and the interests of religion and the Lord's-day came not in stead of the Sabbath and it did not succeed in the place of the Sabbath but was meerly a Christian festival and holy day But at last That the keeping of the Lord's-day be a Tradition Apostolical I desire it were heartily believed by every Christian for though it would make nothing against the sufficiency of Scriptures in all Questions of faith and rules of manners yet it might be an engagement on all men to keep it with the greater religion 6. At the end of this it is fit I take notice of another particular offer'd by the By not in justification of Tradition but in defiance of them that oppose it If the Protestants oppose all Tradition in General E. W. p. 5. they must quit every Tenet of Protestant religion as Protestantism for Example sake The belief of two Sacraments onely c. The charge is fierce and the stroak is little It was unadvisedly said That every Protestant Doctrine quâ talis must be quitted if Scripture be the rule for this very Proposition That Scripture is the rule of our faith is a main Protestant doctrine and therefore certainly must not be quitted if Scripture be the rule that is if the doctrine be true it must not be forsaken And although in the whole progress of this book Protestant religion will be greatly justified by Scripture yet for the present I desire the Gentleman to consider a little better about giving the Chalice to all Communicants whether their denying it to the Laity be by authority of Scripture and I desire him to consider what place of the Old or New Testament he hath for worshipping and making the images of God the Father and the Holy Ghost or for having their publick Devotions in an unknown tongue But of these hereafter As to the instance of two Sacraments onley I desire the Gentleman to understand our doctrine a little better It is none of the Doctrine of the Church of England that there are two Sacraments onely But that of those Rituals commanded in Scripture which the Ecclesiastical use calls Sacraments by a word of art Two onely are generally necessary to Salvation And although we are able to prove this by a Tradition much more Universal than by which the Roman Doctors can prove seven yet we rely upon Scripture for our Doctrine and though it may be I shall not dispute it with this Gentleman that sends his chartel unless he had given better proof of his learning and his temper yet I suppose if he reads this book over he shall find something first or last to instruct him or at least to entertain him in that particular also But for the present lest such an unconcerning trifle be forgotten I desire him to consider that he hath little reason to concern himself in the just number of seven Sacraments for that there are brought in amongst them some new devices I cannot call them Sacraments but something like what they have already forg'd which being but external rites yet out-do most of their Sacraments About the year 1630. there were introduc'd into Ireland by the Franciscans and Carmelite Friers three pretty propositions 1. Whosoever shall die in the habit of S. Francis shall never be prevented with an unhappy death 2. Whosoever shall take the Scapular of the Carmelites and die in the same shall never be damned 3. Whosoever shall fast the first Saturday after they have heard of the death of Luissa a Spanish Nun of the Order of S. Clare shall have no part in the second death Now these external rites promise more grace than is conferr'd by their Sacraments for it promises a certainty of glory and an intermediat certainty of being in the state of Grace which to them is not and cannot be done according to their doctrine by all the other Sacraments and Sacramentals of their Church Now these things are deriv'd to them by pretended revelations of S. Francis and S. Simon Stoc. And though I know not what the Priests and Friers in England will think or say of this matter yet I assure them in Ireland they are of great account and with much fancy religion and veneration us'd at this day And not long since visiting some of my Churches I found an old Nun in the Neighbourhood a poor Clare as I think but missing her Cord about her which I had formerly observ'd her to wear I ask'd the cause and was freely answered that a Gentlewoman who had lately died had purchas'd it of her to put about her in her grave And of how great veneration the Saturday-fast is here every one knows but the cause I knew not till I had learn'd the story of S. Luissa and that Flemming their Archbishop of Dublin had given countenance to it by his example and credulity But now it may be perceiv'd that the question of seven Sacraments is out-done by the intervention of some new ones which although they want the name do greater effects and therefore have a better title But I proceed to more material considerations Cardinal Perron hath chosen no other instances of matters necessary as he supposes them but there are many ritual matters customs and ceremonies which were at least it is said so practis'd by the Apostolical Churches and some it may be are descended down to us but because the Churches practise many things which the Apostles did not and the Apostles did and ordain'd many things which the Church does not observe it will not appertain to the Question to say There are or are not in these things Traditions Apostolical The Colledge of Widows is dissolv'd the Canon of abstaining from things strangled Vide Ductor dub tantium Rule of Conscience lib. 3. Reg. 11. n. 5. 6. obliges not the Church and S. Paul's rule of not electing a Bishop that is a Novice or young Christian is not always observ'd at Rome nay S. Paul himself consecrated Timothy when he was but twenty five years of age and the * Regirald Praâ—is sori pae â—i l. â— c. 12. Sect. 3. n. 133. Wednesday and Friday Fast is pretended to have been a precept from the very times of the Apostles and yet it is observed but in very few places and of the fifty Canons called Apostolical very few are observed in the Church at this day and of 84 collected by Clement as was suppos'd de Sacr. hâ—m conti l. 5. c. 105. Peres de tradiâ— part 3. c. de author Canon Apost Michael Medina says scarce six or eight are observed by the Latin Church For in them many things are contain'd saith Peresius which by the corruption of times are
devesting the Church from the simplicity of her Faith is like removing the ancient Land-mark you cannot tell by the mark in what Countrey you are in whether in your own or in the Enemies And in the world nothing is more unnecessary For if that faith be sufficient if in that faith the Church went to Heaven if in that she preserv'd unity and begat Children to Christ and nurs'd them up to be perfect men in Christ and kept her self pure from Heresie and unbroken by Schism whatsoever is added to it is either contain'd in the Article virtually or it is not If not then it is no part of the Faith and by the laws of Faith there is no obligation pass'd upon any man to believe it But if it be then he that believes the Article does virtually believe all that is virtually contain'd in it but no man is to be press'd with the consequents drawn from thence unless the Transcript be drawn by the same hand that wrote the Original for we are sure it came in the simplicity of it from an infallible Spirit but he that bids me believe his Deductions under pain of damnation bids me under pain of damnation believe that he is an Unerring Logician for which because God hath given me no command and himself can give me no security if I can defend my self from that man's pride God will defend me from Damnation But let us see a little further with what constancy That and The following Ages of the Church did adhere to the Apostles Creed as the sufficient and perfect Rule of Faith There was an Imperial Edict of Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius Cunctos populos quos clementiae nostrae regit imperium in eâ volumus religione versari quam Divinum Petrum Apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque nunc ab ipso insi nuata declarat quámque pontificem Damasum sequi claret Petrum Alexandriae Episcopum virum Apostolicae sanctitatis hoc est ut secundum Apostolicam disciplinam Evangelicamque doctrinam Patris Filii Spiritus sancti Vnam Deitatem sub pari majestate sub piâ Trinitate credamus Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum Catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti reliquos verò dementes vesanósque judicantes Haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere divina primùm vindictâ pòst etiam motu animi nostri quem ex coelesti arbitrio sumpserimus ultione plectendos Part of this being cited in the Dissuasive to prove that in the early Ages of the Church the Christian Faith was much more simple than it is now in the Roman Church The Letter to a friend p. 4. and that upon easier terms men might then be Catholick It was replied by some one of the Opponents That by this law was not meant that all who believ'd the Trinity were Catholicks absolutely but only as to those points and the Reason given is this Because after this law the Novatians Donatists Nestorians Eutychians c. were proceeded against as Hereticks and Schismaticks notwithstanding their belief of the Trinity and Vnity of the God-head But this thing was spoken without all care whether it were to the purpose or no. For when this law was made that was the Rule of Catholicism as appears by the words of the law and if afterward it became alter'd and the Bishops became too opinionative or thought themselves forc'd into further declarations must therefore the precedent law be judged ex post facto by what they did afterwards It might as well have been said the Church was never content with the Apostles Creed because afterwards the Lutherans and Calvinists and Zuinglians c. were proceeded against as Hereticks and Schismaticks notwithstanding their belief of all that is in the Apostles Creed Ex post facto nunquam crescit praeteriti aestimatio says the law But for the true understanding of this Imperial law we must know that the confession of the Holy Trinity and Unity was not set down there as a single Article but as a Summary of the Apostles Creed the three parts of which have for their heads The three Persons of the holy and undivided Trinity And this appears by the relation the law makes to the faith Saint Peter taught the Church of Rome and to the Creed of Damasus which may be seen in Saint Hierom who rejects the Creed of that worthy Prelate in the second Tome of his Works in which the Apostolical Creed is explicated that what relates to the Trinity and Unity spoken of in the Imperial Law or Rule of Catholicks and Christians is set down in it's full purpose and design And this thing may better be understood by an instance in the Catechism of the Church of England for when the Catechumen hath at large recited the Apostles Creed he is taught to summe it up in this manner First I learn to believe in God the Father who hath made me and all the world Secondly In God the Son who hath redeemed me and all mankind Thirdly In God the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God This is the Summary of the Creed and these things are not to be considered as Articles distinct and complete and integrating the Christian Faith but as a breviary of that Faith to which in the same place it is made to relate just as the Imperial Law does relate to the Faith of S. Peter and the Creed of Damasus and Peter of Alexandria Concerning which he that says much says no more and he that says little says no less for the Faith is the same as I have already cited the words of S. Irenaeus Since then the Emperours made the summary of the Apostles Creed to be the rule of discerning Catholicks from Hereticks it follows that the Roman Church Catholick signifies something else than it did in the primitive Church S. Ambrose says Faith is conceiv'd by the Apostles Creed all Faith lies in that as the Child in the Mother's Womb and he compares it to a Key because by it the darknesses of the Devil are unlock'd that the light of Christ might come upon us and the hidden sins of conscience are opened that the manifest works of righteousness may shine This Key is to be shown to our Brethren that by this as Scholars of S. Peter they may shut the gates of Hell and open the doors of Heaven He also calls it The Seal of our Heart and the Sacrament of our Warfare S. Hierom speaking of it Epist. ad Pammach contra â—rro es Johan Hierosolymit Exp siâ— Symbol c. 2 3. l. 6. Orig. c. 9. says The Symbol of our Faith and Hope which was deliver'd by the Apostles is not written in Paper and Ink but in the fleshy tables of our hearts After the confession of the Trinity and Vnity of the Church the whole or every Sacrament of the Christian Religion is concluded with the resurrection of the flesh Which words are intimated and in part transcribed by Isidore of Sevil.
Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur Lib. 3. de Trinit c. 4. said S. Hierom and S. Austin calls the Sacrament Prece mystica consecratum Vide Divine instit of the Office Ministeriâ—l â—ect 7. Of the Real and Spiâ— presence Sect. 4. But of this thing I have given an account in other places The use I make of it now is this that the Church of Rome is not onely forward to decree things uncertain or to take them for granted which they can never prove but when she is by chance or interest or mistake faln upon a proposition she will not endure any one to oppose it and indeed if she did suffer a change in this particular not onely a great part of their Thomistical Theology would be found out to be sandy and inconsistent but the whole doctrine of Transubstantiation would have no foundation True it is this is a new doctrine in the Church of Rome for Amularius affirms that the Apostles did consecrate onely by Benediction and Pope Innocent the third and Pope Innocent the fourth taught that Christ did not consecrate by the words of Hoc est corpus meum so that the doctrine is new and yet I make no question he that shall now say so shall not be accounted a Catholick But the instances are many of this nature not necessary to be enumerated because they are notorious and when the Quaestiones disputatae as S. Thomas Aquinas calls a Volume of his Disputation are at least many of them past into Catholick propositions and become the general doctrine of their Church they do not so much insist upon the nature of the propositions as the securing of that authority by which they are taught If any man dissent in the doctrine of Purgatory or Concomitancy and the half Communion then presently Hannibal ad portas they first kill him and then damne him as far as they can But in the great questions of Predetermination in which mans duty and the force of laws and the powers of choice and the attributes of God are deeply concerned they differ infinitely and yet they endure the difference and keep the Communion But if the heats and interests that are amongst them had happened to be imployed in this Instance they would have made a dissent in these questions as damnable as any other But the events of salvation and damnation blessed be God do not depend upon the votes and sentences of men but upon the price which God sets upon the propositions and it would be considered that there are some propositions in which men are confident and erre securely which yet have greater influence upon the honour of God or his dishonour or upon good or bad life respectively than many others in which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make more noise and have less consideration For these things they teach not as the scribes but as having authority not as Doctors but as Lawgivers which because Christ onely is the Apostles by the assistance of an infallible spirit did publish his Sanctions but gave no laws of faith but declar'd what Christ had made so and S. Paul was careful to leave a note of difference with a. hoc dico ego non Dominus it follows that the Church of Rome does dominari fidei conscientiis make her self mistress of faith and consciences which being the prerogative of God it is part of his glory that he will not impart unto another But this evil hath proceeded unto extremity and armies have been raised to prove their propositions and vast numbers of innocent persons have been put to the sword and burnt in the fire and expos'd to horrible torments for denying any of their articles and their Saints have been their Ensign bearers particularly S. Dominick and an office of torment and Inquisition is erected in their most zealous Countries Nempe hoc est esse Christianum this is the Roman manner of being Christian And whom they can and whom they cannot kill they excommunicate and curse and say they are damned This is so contrary to the communion of Saints and so expressly against the rule of the Apostle commanding us to receive them that are weak in faith but not to receive them unto doubtful disputations and so ruinous to the grace of charity which hopes and speaks the best and not absolutely the worst thing in the world and so directly oppos'd to Christs precept which commands us not to judge that we be not judged and is an enemy to publick peace which is easily broken with them whom they think to be damned wretches and is so forgetful of humane infirmity and but little considers that in so innumerable a company of old and new propositions it is great odds but themselves are or may be deceiv'd and lastly it is so much against the very law of nature which ever permits the Understanding free though neither tongue nor hand and leaves all that to the Divine Judgement which ought neither to be invaded nor antedated that this evil doctrine and practice is not more easily reproved than it is pernicious and intolerable and of all things in the world the most unlike the spirit of a Christian. I know that against this they have no answer to oppose but to recriminate and say that we in the Church of England do so and hang their priests and punish by fines and imprisonment their lay Proselytes To which the answer need not be long or to trouble the order of the discourse For 1. we put none of their Laity to death for their opinion which shews that it is not the Religion is persecuted but some other evil appendix 2. We do not put any of their Priests to death who is not a native of the Kingdoms but those subjects who pass over hence and receive orders abroad and return with evil errands 3. Neither were these so treated until by the Pope our Princes were excommunicated and the Subjects absolved from their duty to them and incouraged to take up arms against them and that the English Priests return'd with traiterous desings and that many conspiracies were discover'd 4. And lastly when much of the evil and just causes of fear did cease the severity of procedure is taken off and they have more liberty than hitherto they have deserv'd Now if any of these things can be said by the Church of Rome in her defence I am content she shall enjoy the benefit of her justification For her rage extends to all Laity as well as Clergy forreign Clergy as well as Domestick their own people and strangers the open dissentients and the secretly suspected those that are delated and those whom they can inquire of and own that which we disavow and which if we did do we should be reproved by our own sentences and publick profession to the contrary But now after all this if it shall appear that the danger is on the part of the Roman Church and safety on our side and yet that we in
any thing so well as by writing what was to be kept inviolate especially in the propositions of Faith relying oftentimes upon a word and a phrase and a manner of expression which in the infinite variety of reporters might too easily suffer change Thus far we can safely argue concerning the error of the Church of Rome and to this not we but the Fathers add a severe Censure And when some of these censures were set down by way of caution and warning not of judgment and final sentence it seems a wonder to me how these Gentlemen of the Roman Communion Letter and Truth will out c. that wrote against the Book should recite all these terrible sayings out of the Fathers against their superaddition of Articles to the Faith contain'd in Scriptures and be so little concerned as to read them with a purpose only to find fault with the quotations and never be smitten with a terror of the judgment which the Fathers pronounce against them that do so Just as if a man being ready to perish in a storm should look up and down the ship to see if the little paintings were exact or as if a man in a terrible clap of thunder should consider whether he ever heard so unmusical a sound and never regard his own danger 2. The same is the case in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worshipping of consecrated Bread in which if they be not deceiv'd all the reason and all the senses of all the men in the world are deceiv'd and if they be deceiv'd then it is certain they give Divine worship to what they naturally eat and drink and how great a provocation of God that is they cannot but know by the whole analogy of the Old and New Testament and even by natural reason it self and all the dictates of Religion which God hath written in our hearts On the other side if we consider that if the Divine worship they intend to Christ were pass'd immediately to him sitting in Heaven and not thorow that blessed thing upon the Altar but directly and primarily to him whose passion there is represented and the benefits of whose death are there offer'd and exhibited there could be no diminution of any right due to Christ. Nay to them who consider that in the first institution and tradition of it to the Apostles Christ's body was still whole and unkroken and separate from the Bread and could not then be transubstantiate and pass from it self into what it was not before and yet remain still it self what it was before and that neither Christ did command the Apostles to worship neither did they worship any thing but God the Father at that time it must needs seem to be a prodigious venture of their souls to change that action into a needless and ungrounded superstition especially since after Christ's ascension his body is not only in Heaven which must contain it until his coming to judgment but is so chang'd so immaterial or spiritual that it is not capable of being broken by hands or teeth In not adoring that which we see to be Bread we can be as safe as the Apostles were who that we find did not worship it but in giving Divine honours to it we can be no more safe in case their proposition be amiss than he that worships the Sun because he verily believes he is the God of Heaven A good meaning in this case will not justifie his action not only because he hath enough to instruct him better and to bring him to better understanding but especially because he may mean as well if he worships Christ in Heaven Ad sua templa oculis animo ad sua numina spectans yea and better when he does actually worship Christ at that time directing the worship to him in Heaven and would terminate his worship on the Host if he were sure it were Christ or were commanded so to do Add to this that to worship Christ is an affirmative praecept and so it be done in wisdom and holiness and love in all just ways of address to him in praying to him reciting his prayers giving him thanks trusting in him hoping in him and loving him with the best love of obedience not to bow the knee hîc nunc when we fear to displease him by so doing cannot be a sin because for that hîc nunc there is no commandement at all And after all if we will suppose that the doctrine of Transubstantiation were true yet because the Priest that consecrates may indeed secretly have receiv'd invalid Orders or have evil Intention or there may be some undiscernable nullity in the whole Oeconomy and ministration so that no man of the Roman Communion can say that by Divine faith he believes that this Host is at this time transubstantiated but onely hath conjectures and ordinary suppositions that it is so and that he does not certainly know the contrary He that certainly gives Divine Honour to that which is not certain to be the Body of Christ runs into a danger too great to promise to himself he shall be safe Some there are who go further yet and consider that the Church of Rome say onely that the bread is chang'd into the body of Christ but not into his soul for then the same bread would be at the same time both material and immaterial and that if it were that to give honours absolutely Divine to the humanity of Christ abstracted from consideration of his Divinity into which certainly the bread is not transubstantiated is too neer the doctrine of the Socinians who suppose the humanity to be absolutely Deified and Divine Honours to be due to Christ as a man whom God hath exalted above every name But if they say that they worship the body in concretion with the Divinity it is certain that may be done at all times by looking up to heaven in all our religious addresses And therefore that is the safe way and that 's the way of the Church of England The other way viz. of the Church of Rome at the best is full of dangers and qui amat periculum peribit in illo was the wise mans caution 3. The like to this is the Practice of the Church of Rome in worshipping Angels which as it is no where commanded in the New Testament so it is expressly forbidden by an Angel himself twice Revel 22. to S. John adding an unalterable reason for I am thy fellow-servant worship God or as some Ancient Copies read it worship Jesus meaning that although in the Old Testament the Patriarchs and Prophets did bow before the Angels that appear'd to them as God's Embassadors and in the Person of God and to which they were greatly inclined because their law was given by Angels yet when God had exalted the Son of Man to be the Lord of Men and Angels we are all fellow-servants and they are not to receive religious worship as before nor we to pay it them And by
and making Religion and the Service of God to consist in things indifferent So they made void Gods Commandment by turning Religion into superstition 2. Whereas humane laws customs and traditions may oblige in publick and for order sake and decency and for reputation and avoiding scandal and to give testimony of obedience and are not violated if they be omitted without scandal and contempt and injury with a probable reason yet to think they oblige beyond what man can see or judge or punish or feel is to give to humane laws the estimate which is due to divine laws So did the Pharisees Quicquid sapientes vetant palà m fieri id etiam in penetralibus vetitum est said Rabbi Bachai But this is the Prerogative of Divine Laws which oblige as much in private as in publick because God equally sees in the Closet and in the Temple Men cannot do this and therefore cannot make Laws to bind where they can have no cognisance and no concern 3. Humane authority is to command according to its own rate that is at the rate of humane understanding where the obedience may be possibly deficient because the understanding is fallible But the Divine authority is infallible and absolute and supreme and therefore our obedience to it must be as absolute perpetual and indeficient But the Pharisees had a saying and their practice was accordingly Si dixerint scribae dextram esse sinistram sinistram esse dextram audi eos said the forenamed Rabbi 2. The second degree in which this express'd it self among the Pharisees was that they did not onely equal but preferr'd the Commandments of men before the Commands of God Plus est in verbis scribarum quam in verbis legis * In â—itulis Thalmudicis Baba Metzias B. rechoâ—h c. and of this the instance that our Blessed Saviour gives is in the case of the Corban and not relieving their Parents Sacrum erit quicquid paravero in futurum ad os patris * Rabbi Nissim If they said it was dedicated their Father 's hungry belly might not be relieved by it And this our Blessed Saviour calls as being the highest degree of this superstition a making the Commandment of God of no effect by their tradition this does it directly as the other did it by necessary and unavoidable consequence Now that the Church of Rome is greatly guilty of this criminal way of teaching and mis-leading the Consciences of her disciples will appear in these amongst many other instances SECTION X. Of the Seal of Confession 1. I First instance in their Seal of Confession And the question is not Whether a Priest is to take care of his Penitent's fame or whether he be not in all prudent and pious ways to be careful lest he make that Entercourse odious For certainly he is But whether the Seal of Confession be so sacred and impregnable that it is not to be opened in the imminent danger of a King or Kingdom or for the doing the greatest good or avoiding the greatest evil in the world that 's now the question and such a Broad Seal as this is no part of the Christian Religion was never spoken of by the Prophets or Apostles in the Old or the New Testament never was so much as mention'd in the Books of the Ancient Fathers and Doctors not so much as named in the Ancient Councils of the Church and was not heard of until after the time of Pope Gregory the seventh Now how this is determin'd practis'd in the Church of Rome we may quickly see The first direct Rule in the Western Church we find in this affair Decretal de poenitentâ—is remissionibus is the Canon of the Lateran Council Cap. Omnis utriusque in which to Confess at Easter was made an Ecclesiastical Law and as an Appendix to it this caution Caveatautem omninò ne verbo aut signo aut alio quovis modo aliquatenus prodat peccatorem sed si prudentiore consilio indiguerit illud absque ullâ expressione personae requirat This Law concerning them that do confess their secret sins to a Priest in order to Counsel comfort and pardon from God by his Ministery is very prudent and pious and it relates only to the person not to the crimes these may upon the account of any doubt or the advantage of better counsel and instruction be reveal'd the person upon such accounts may not Nisi veritas aut obedientia aliud exigat In 3. dist 21. as S. Bonaventure said well Unless truth or obedience require the contrary for indeed the person is not often so material as to the inquiry of future counsel or present judgment as the greatness and other circumstances of the sin But this was an ancient Ecclesiastical Rule â—ib 7. cap. 16. hist. Eccles. as we find it related by Sozomen Presbyterum aliquem vitae integritate quam maximè spectabilem secretorum eitam tenacem ac sapientem huic officio praefecerunt A penitentiary Priest was appointted for the Penitents a man that was of good life wise and secret So far was well and agreeable to common prudence and natural reason and the words of Solomon Prov. 11. 13. Qui ambulat fraudulenter revelat arcanum qui autem fidelis est celat amici commissum There is in this case some more reason than in ordinary secrets but still the obligation is the same and to be governed by prudence and is subject to contradiction by greater causes The same also is the Law in the Greek Church Epist. ad Amphilochium mentioned by S. Basil Our Fathers permitted not that women that had committed Adultery and were penitent should be delated in publick * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A. D. 1603. This is the whole ground and foundation on which the Seal of Confession does or can rely save only that in several Churches there were several Laws in after-ages to the same purpose and particularly in the 11th Canon of the Church of England adding also the penalty of irregularity to every Priest that shall reveal any thing committed to him in private Confession but with this Proviso that it be not binding in such cases where the concealment is made capital by the Laws of the Kingdom which because it is very strict and yet very prudent I shall make it appear that the Church of England walks wisely in it and according to the precedents of the Ancient Catholick Church in commanding the Seal to be broken up in some cases and yet she hath restrain'd it more than formerly was observed in the Churches of God Burchard expresâ—ly affirms Lib. 19. Decreti sui c. 37. Concil Moguaâ— cap. 10. 21. that before the Nicene Council the penitentiary Priest might publish what he heard in Confessions if it were for the good of the penitent or for the greatness of the crime it seem'd fit to the Confessor And that he says true we have sufficient testimony from
consider'd how cheap are the lives of Kings in their eyes who consult more with the safety of a Villain whom they dare not absolve * Script Garnetti apud Is. Casaub ni Epist. ad Fron. Du caeum p. 13â— than of a King who is worthy ten thousands of his people and let it be also considered that by using all the ways in the world to make Confession easie to Traitors and Homicides they make it odious to Kings and Princes and to all that love the safety of their Sovereigns and of the publick We find that the laws of God yield to charity and necessity and Christ followed the act of David who when he was hungry eat the Shew-bread which was unlawful to be eaten but by the Priest alone and he that commanded us to go and learn what that means I will have mercy and not sacrifice intended not that the Seal of Confession should upon pretence of Religion be us'd to the most uncharitable ends in the world no though it had been made sacred by a Divine Commandment which it is not but is wholly introduc'd by Custom and Canons Ecclesiastical And when we see that things dedicated to God and made sacred by Religion and the laws of God confirming such Religion can be alien'd and made common in cases of extreme necessity or great charity it is a strange superstition that shall hold that fast with teeth and nails and never let it go no not to save a soul not to preserve the life of Kings not to prevent the greatest mâ—schief in the world This is certainly a making the Commandments of men greater and more sacred than the Commandments of God and a passing them into a doctrine great necessary and unalterable as a Fundamental Article SECTION XI Of the imposing Auricular Confession upon Consciences without authority from God THat Confession to a Priest is a Doctrine taught as necessary in the Church of Rome is without all question and yet that it is but the Commandment of men I shall I hope clearly enough evince and if I do I suppose the Charge laid against the Church of Rome which is the same Christ laid against the Pharisees will be fully made good as to this instance For this is one of the sorts of that Crime to say Dixit Dominus Dominus autem non dixit to pretend a Rite to be of Divine institution when it is not so but humanum inventum a device of man's brain The other which is still supposing an institution to be humane and positive yet to urge it with the same severe Religion as they do a Divine Commandment I shall consider in other instances For the present the inquiry is concerning Auricular Confession and it's pretended necessity The first Decree concerning it was in the Lateran Council Can. 21. in which every person of years of discretion is commanded to confess all his sins to his own Priest at least once in the year or to another Priest with the leave of his own otherwise while he is living he must be driven from entrance into the Church and when he is dead he must have no Christian Burial This is very severe but yet here is no damnation to them that neglect it and the duty is not pretended to be by Divine Commandment and therefore lest that severity might seem too much to be laid upon humane Law they made it up in the new forge at Trent and there it was decreed that To confess all and every mortal sin which after diligent inquiry we remember and every evil thought or desire Sess. 14. Capp 6. 7. and the circumstances that change the nature of the sin is necessary for the remission of sins and of Divine institution and he that denies this is to be Anathema Whether to confess to a Priest be an adviseable discipline and a good instance instrument and ministery of Repentance and may serve many good ends in the Church and to the souls of needing persons is is no part of the Question We find that in the Acts of the Apostles divers converted persons came to S. Paul either publickly or privately and confess'd their deeds * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. magicas incantationes simile illud ibidem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nimirum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and burnt their books of Exorcism that is did what became severe and hearty penitents who needed Counsel and Comfort and that their Repentance should be conducted by wise Guides And when S. James exhorts all Christians to confess their sins to one another certainly it is more agreeable to all spiritual ends that this be done rather to the Curates of Souls than to the ordinary Brethren The Church of England is no way engag'd against it but advises it and practises it The Calvinist-Churches do not practise it much because they know not well how to devest it from it's evil appendages which are put to it by the customs of the world and to which it is too much expos'd by the interests weaknesses and partialities of men But they commending it show they would use it willingly if they could order it unto edification a Calvin Instit. lib. 3. cap. 4. Sect. 12. 13. Interim quin sistant se Pastori oves quoties sacram Coenam participare volunt adeò non reclamo ut maximè velim hoc ubique observari And for the Lutheran Churches that it is their practice we may see it in b 2. Part. Exam. Concil Trid. cap. 5. de poenit Chemnitius who was one of greatest fame amongst them and he is noted to this purpose by * Lib. 3. de poenit cap. 1. Sect. Martinus Kemnitius Bellarmin only they all consent that it is not necessary nor of Divine institution and being but of man's invention it ought not to pass into a doctrine and as the Apostles said in the matter of Circumcision a burden ought not to be put upon the necks of the Disciples and that in lege gratiae In â— dist 17. q. 2. ex Scoto longè difficilimum too as Maior observes truly by far greater than any burden in the Law of Grace the time of the Gospel Let it be commanded to all to whom it is needful or profitable but let it be free as to the Conscience precisely and bound but by the cords of a man and as other Ecclesiastical Laws are which are capable of exceptions restrictions cautions dispensations rescindings and abolitions by the same authority or upon greater reasons The Question then is Whether to confess all our greater sins to a Priest all that upon strict enquiry we can remember be necessary to salvation This the Church of Rome now affirms and this the Church of England and all Protestant Churches deny and complain sadly that the Commandments of men are chang'd into the doctrines of God by a Pharisaical empire and superstition Here then we joyn issue 1. And in the first place I shall represent that the
presently after death to mean the day of judgment of the time of which neither men nor Angels know any thing And whereas Justin Martyr says that presently the souls of the righteous go to Paradise Pag. 33. E. W. answers 2. That Justin does not say that all just souls are carried presently into Heaven no Justin says into Paradise true but let it be remembred that it is so a part of Heaven as limbus infantum is by themselves call'd a part of hell that is a place of bliss the region of the blessed But 3. Justin says that presently there is a separation made but he says not that the souls of the righteous are carried to Paradise That 's the next answer which the very words of Justin do contradict There is presently a separation made of the just and unjust for they are by the Angels carried to the places they have deserved This is the separation which is made one is carried to Paradise the other to a place in hell But these being such pitiful offers at answering the Gentleman tries another way and says 4. That this affirmative of Justin contradicts another saying of Justin which I cited out of Sixtus Senensis that Iustin Martyr and many other of the Fathers affirm'd that the souls of men are kept in secret receptacles reserved unto the sentence of the great day and that before then no man receives according to his works done in this life To this I answer that one opinion does not contradict another for though the Fathers believ'd that they who die in the Lord rest from their labours and are in blessed places and have antepasts of joy and comforts yet in those places they are reserv'd unto the judgment of the great day The intermedial joy or sorrow respectively of the just and unjust does but antidate the final sentence and as the comforts of Gods spirit in this life are indeed graces of God and rewards of piety as the torments of an evil conscience are the wages of impiety yet as these do not hinder but that the great reward is given at dooms-day and not before so neither do the joys which the righteous have in the interval They can both consist together and are generally affirm'd by very many of the Greek and Latin Fathers E. W. pag. 36. And methinks this Gentleman might have learn'd from Sixtus Senensis how to have reconcil'd these two opinions for he quotes him saying there is a double beatitude the one imperfect of soul only the other consummate and perfect of soul and body The first the Fathers call'd by several names of Sinus Abrahae Atrium Dei sub Altare c. The other perfect joy the glory of the resurrection c. But it matters not what is said or how it be contradicted so it seem but to serve a present turn But at last if nothing of this will do these words are not the words of Iustin for he is not the Author of the Questions and Answers ad orthodoxos To which I answer it matters not whether they be Iustins or no But they are put together in the collection of his works and they are generally called his and cited under his name and made use of by Bellarmine * Lib. de baptis c. 25. 26. lib. de confirmat c. 5 l. 3. de Euchar. c. 6. when he supposes them to be to his purpose However the Author is Ancient and Orthodox and so esteem'd in the Church and in this particular speaks according to the doctrine of the more Ancient Doctors well but how is this against Purgatory says E. W. P. 36. line 29. for they may be in secret receptacles after they have been in Purgatory To this I answer that he dares not teach that for doctrine in the Church of Rome who believes that the souls deliver'd out of Purgatory go immediately to the heaven of the Blessed and therefore if his book had been worth the perusing by the Censors of books he might have been question'd and followed Mr. Whites fortune And he adds it might be afterwards according to Origens opinion that is Purgatory might be after the day of judgment for so Origen held that all the fires are Purgatory and the Devils themselves should be sav'd Thus this poor Gentleman thinking it necessary to answer one argument against Purgatory brought in the dissuasive cares not to answer by a condemned heresie rather than reason shall be taught by any son of the Church of England But however the very words of the Fathers cross his slippery answers so that they thrust him into a corner for in these receptacles the godly have joy and they enter into them as soon as they die and abide there till the day of judgment S. Ambrose is so full De bono mortis cap. 4. pertinent and material to the Question in hand and so destructive of the Roman hypothesis that nothing can be said against it His words are these therefore in all regards death is good because it divides those that were always fighting that they may not impugne each other and because it is a certain port to them who being toss'd in the sea of this world require the station of faithful rest and because it makes not our state worse but such as it finds every one such it reserves him to the future judgment and nourishes him with rest and withdraws him from the envy of present things and composes him with the expectation of future things E. W. Pag. 34. thinking himself bound to say something to these words answers It is an excellent saying for worse he is not but infinitely better that quit off the occasions of living here is ascertain'd of future bliss hereafter which is the whole drift of the Saint in that Chapter Read it and say afterwards if I say not true It is well put off But there are very many that read him who never will or can examine what S. Ambrose says and withal such he hopes to escape But as to the thing That death gives a man advantage and by its own fault no disadvantage is indeed not only the whole drift of that Chapter but of that whole book But not for that reason only is a man the better for death but because it makes him not worse in order to Eternity nay it does not alter him at all as to that for as death finds him so shall the judgment find him and therefore not purified by Purgatory for such he is reserved and not only thus but it cherishes him with rest which would be very ill done if death carried him to Purgatory Now all these last words and many others E. W. is pleas'd to take no notice of as not being for his purpose But he that pleases to see more may read the 12. and 18. Chapters of the same Treatise S. Gregorie's saying S. Greg. Nazianz orat 15. in plagam grandiâ—is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that after this life there is
the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of it Now then for the quotations themselves I hope I shall give a fair account 1. The words quoted Lect. 40. in Can. Missae are the words of Biel when he had first affirmed that Christs body is contained truly under the bread and that it is taken by the faithful all which we believe and teach in the Church of England he adds Tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum that is the way of Transubstantiation an sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canone Biblii and that 's the way of Consubstantiation so that here is expressely taught what I affirm'd was taught that the Scriptures did not express the doctrine of Transubstantiation and he adds that concerning this there were Anciently divers opinions Thus far the quotation is right But of this man there is no notice taken But what of Scotus He saith no such thing well suppose that yet I hope this Gentleman will excuse me for Bellarmines sake who says the same thing of Scotus as I do and he might have found it in the Margent against the quotation of Scotus if he had pleas'd Lib. 3. de Euchar c. 23. His words are these Secondly he saith viz. Sect. Secundò dicit Scotus that there is not extant any place of Scripture so express without the declaration of the Church that it can compel us to admit of Transubstantiation And this is not altogether improbable For though the Scriptures which we brought above seem so clear to us that it may compel a man that is not wilful yet whether it be so or no it may worthily be doubted since most learned and acute men such as Scotus eminently was believe the contrary Well! But the Gentleman can find no such thing in Ocham I hope he did not look far for OCham is not the man I mean however the printer might have mistaken but it is easily pardonable because from O. Cam. meaning Odo Cameracensis it was easie for the printer or transcriber to write Ocam as being of more public name But the Bishop of Cambray is the man that followed Scotus in this opinion Vbi suprae and is acknowledged by Bellarmine to have said the same that Scotus did he being one of his docti acutissimi viri there mentioned Contra. Captiv Now if Roffensis have the same thing too Babyl c. 1. this Author of the letter will have cause enough to be a little ashamed And for this I shall bring his words speaking of the whole institution of the Blessed Sacrament by our Blessed Saviour he says Neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fieri carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam I suppose I need to say no more to verifie these citations but yet I have another very good witness to prove that I have said true and that is Salmeron who says that Scotus out of Innocentius reckons three opinions not of heretics Tom. 9. tract 16. p. 108. p. â—10 but of such men who all agreed in that which is the main but he adds Some men and writers believe that this article cannot be proved against a heretic by Scripture alone or reasons alone Lib. 1. de Euchar c. 34. And so Cajetan is affirm'd by Suarez and Alanus to have said and Melchior Canus perpetuam Mariae virginitatem conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi non ita expressa in libris Canonicis invenies Page 37. vide Letter p. 18. sed adeo tamen certa in fide sunt ut contrariorum dogmatum authores Ecclesia haereticos judicarit So that the Scripture is given up for no sure friend in this Q. the article wholy relies upon the authority of the Church viz. of Rome who makes faith and makes heresies as she please But to the same purpose is that also which Chedzy said in his disputation at Oxford In what manner Christ is there whether with the bread Transelemented or Transubstantiation the Scripture in open words tells not But I am not likely so to escape Pag. 38. for E. W. See also the letter to a friend p. 19. talkes of a famous or rather infamous quotation out of Peter Lombard and adds foul and uncivil words which I pass by but the thing is this that I said Petrus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no. I did say so and I brought the very words of Lombard to prove it and these very words E. W. himself acknowledges Si autem quaeritur qualis fit ista conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio I am not able to define or determine whether that change be formal or substantial So far E. W. quotes him but leaves out one thing very material viz. whether besides formal or substantial it be of another kinde Now E. W. not being able to deny that Lombard said this takes a great deal of useless pains not one word of all that he says being to the purpose or able to make it probable that Peter Lombard did not say so or that he did not think so But the thing is this Biel reckon'd three opinions which in Lombards time were in the Church the first of Consubstantiation which was the way which long since then Luther followed The second that the substance of bread is made the flesh of Christ but ceases not to be what it was But this is not the doctrine of Transubstantiation for that makes a third opinion which is that the substance of bread ceases to be and nothing remains but the accident Quartam opinionem addit Magister that is Peter Lombard adds a fourth opinion that the substance of bread is not converted but is annihilated this is made by Scotus to be the second opinion Now of these four opinions all which were then permitted and disputed Vbi supra Peter Lombard seems to follow the second but if this was his opinion it was no more for he could not determine whether that were the truth or no. But whether he does or no truly I think it is very hard for any man to tell for this question was but in the forge not polished not made bright with long handling And this was all that I affirm'd out of the Master of Sentences I told of no opinion of his at all but that in his time they did not know whether it viz. the doctrine of Transubstantiation were true or no that is the generality of the Roman Catholics did not know and he himself could not define it And this appears unanswerably by Peter Lombards bringing their several sentiments in this article and they that differ in their judgements about an article and yet esteem the others Catholic may think what
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
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
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