be in more places than one if in two it may be in 2000 and then it may be every where for it is not limited and therefore is illimited and potentially infinite Against this so seemingly impossible at the very first sight and relying upon a similitude and analogy that is not far from blasphemy viz. that as God is in Heaven and yet on Earth eodem modo after the same manner is Christs body which words it cannot be easie to excuse against this I say although for the reasons alledged it be unnecessary to be disproved yet I have these things to oppose 1. The words of Scripture that affirm Christ to be in Heaven affirm also that he is gone from hence Now if Christs body not only could but must be every day in innumerable places on earth it would have been said that Christ is in Heaven but not that he is not here or that he is gone from hence 2. Surrexit non est hîc was the Angels discourse to the inquiring woman at the Sepulchre he is risen he is not here but if they had been taught the new doctrine of the Roman Schools they would have denied the consequent he is risen and gone from hence but he may be here too And this indeed might have put the Angels to a distinction but the womens ignorance rendred them secure However S. Austin is dogmatical in this Article saying Christum ubique totum esse tanquam Deum in eodem tanquam inhabitante Deum in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum Christ as God is every where but in respect of his body he is determin'd to a particular residence in Heaven viz. at the right hand of God that is in the best seat and in the greatest eminency And in the thirtieth Treatise of S. John It behoveth that the body of our Lord since it is raised again should be in one place alone but the truth is spread over all But concerning these words of S. Austin they have taken a course in all their Editions to corrupt the place And in stead of oportet have clapp'd in potest instead of must be have foisted in may be against the faith of the ancient Canonists and Scholasticks particularly Lombard Gratian Ivo Carnotensis Algerus Thomas Bonaventure Richardus Durand Biel Scotus Cassander and divers others To this purpose is that of S. Cyril Alex. He could not converse with his Disciples in the flesh being ascended to his Father So Cassian Jesus Christ speaking on Earth cannot be in Heaven but by the infinity of his Godhead and Fulgentius argues it strongly If the body of Christ be a true body it must be contained in a particular place but this place is just so corrupted in their Editions as is that of S. Austin potest being substituted instead of oportet but this doctrine viz. that to be in several places is impossible to a body and proper to God was affirmed by the Universality of Paris in a Synod under William their Bishop 1340 and Johannes Picus Mirandula maintained in Rome it self that it could not be by the power of God that one body should at once be in divers places 3. Thirdly The Scripture speaks of his going thither from hence by elevation and ascension and of his coming from thence at his appearing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the words have an Antithesis the Heavens till then shall retain him but then he shall come from thence which were needless if he might be here and stay there too 4. When Christ said Me ye have not always and at another time Loe I am with you always to the end of the World It is necessary that we distinguish the parts of a seeming contradiction Christ is with us by his Spirit but Christ is not with us in body but if his body be here too then there is no way of Substantial Real Presence in which those words can be true me ye have not always The Rhemists in their note upon this place say that when Christ said Me ye have not always he means ye have not me in the manner of a poor man needing relief that is Not me so as you have the poor But this is a trifle because our Blessed Saviour did not receive that ministery of Mary Magdalen as a poor man for it was a present for a Prince not a relief to necessity but a Regalo fit for so great a person and therefore if he were here at all after his departure he was capable of as noble an usage and an address fit to represent a Majesty or at least to express a love It was also done for his burying so Christ accepted it and that signified and plainly related to a change of his state and abode But besides this if this could be the interpretation of those words then they did not at all signifie Christs leaving this world but only his changing his circumstance of fortune his outward dress and appendages of person which were a strange commentary upon Me ye have not always that is I shall be with you still but in a better condition but S. Austin hath given sentence concerning the sence of these words of Christ Loquebatur de praesentiâ corporis c. He spake of the presence of his body ye shall have me according to my providence according to Majesty and invisible grace but according to the flesh which the word assumed according to that which was born of the Virgin Mary ye shall not have me therefore because he conversed with his disciples forty days he is ascended up into Heaven and is not here If he be here in person what need he to have sent his Vicar his holy Spirit in substitution especially since by this doctrine he is more now with his Church than he was in the days of his conversion in Palestine for then he was but in one assembly at once now he is in thousands every day If it be said because although he be here yet we see him not This is not sufficient for what matter is it whether we see him or no if we know him to be here if we feel him if we eat him if we worship him in presence natural and proper There wants nothing but some accidents of colour and shape A friend in the dark behind a curtain or to a blind man is as certainly present as if he were in the light in open conversation or beheld with the eyes And then also the office of the holy Spirit would only be to supply the sight of his person which might possibly be true if he had no greater offices and we no greater needs and if he himself also were visible and glorious to our eyes for if the effect of his substitution is spiritual secret and invisible our eyes are still without comfort and if the Spirits secret effect does supply it and makes it not necessary that we should see him then so
and flesh hath been pull'd out of the mouths of the communicants and Plegilus the Priest saw an Angel shewing Christ to him in form of a child upon the Altar whom first he took in his arms and kissed but did eat him up presently in his other shape in the shape of a Wafer Speciosa certè pax Nebulonis ut qui oris praebuerat basium dentium inferret exitium said Berengarius It was but a Judas kiss to kiss with the lip and bite with the teeth But if such stuffe as this may go for argument we may be cloyed with them in those unanswerable Authors Simeon Metaphrastes for the Greeks and Jacobus de Voragine for the Latin who make it a trade to lye for God and for the interest of the Catholick cause But however I shall tell a piece of a true story In the time of Soter Pope of Rome there was an Impostor called Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was his appellative and he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pretending to make the Chalice of wine and water Eucharistical saying long prayers over it made it look red or purple that it might be thought that grace which is above all things does drop the blood into the Chalice by invocation Such as these have been often done by humane artifice or by operation of the Devil said Alexander of Ales. If such things as these were done regularly it were pretence enough to say it is flesh and blood that is in the Eucharist but when nothing of this is done by God but Hereticks and Knaves Juglers and Impostors hoping to change the Sacrament into a charm by abusing the spiritual sence into a gross and carnal against the authority of Scripture and the Church reason or religion have made pretences of those things and still the Holy Sacrament in all the times of ministration hath the form and all the perceptibilities of bread and wine as we may believe those Impostors did more rely upon the pretences of sense than of other arguments and distrusting them did flye to these as the greater probation so we rely upon that way of probation which they would have counterfeited but which indeed Christ in his institution hath still left in the nature of the symbols viz. that it is that which it seems to be and that the other superinduc'd predicate of the body of Christ is to be understood only in that sence which may still consist with that substance whose proper and natural accidents remain and are perceived by the mouth and hands and eyes of all men To which this may be added that by the doctrine of the late Roman Schools all those pretences of real appearances of Christs body or blood must be necessarily concluded to be Impostures or aery phantasmes and illusions because themselves teach that Christs body is so in the Sacrament that Christs own eyes cannot see his own body in the Sacrament and in that manner by which it is there it cannot be made visible no not by the absolute power of God Nay it can be neither seen nor touched nor tasted nor felt nor imagined It is the doctrine of Suarez in 3. Tho. disp 53. Sect. 3. and disp 52. Sect. 1. and of Vasquez in 3. t. 3. disp 191. n. 22. which besides that it reproves the whole Article by making it incredible and impossible it doth also infinitely convince all these apparitions if ever there were any of deceit and fond illusion I had no more to say in this particular but that the Roman Doctors pretend certain words out of S. Cyrils fourth mystagogique Catechism against the doctrine of this Paragraph Pro certissimo habeas c. Be sure of this that this bread which is seen of us is not bread although the taste perceives it to be bread but the body of Christ For under the species of bread the body is given to thee under the species of wine the blood is given to thee Here if we will trust S. Cyrils words at least in Bellarmine's and Brerely's sence and understand of them before you will believe your own eyes you may For S. Cyril bids you not believe your sense For taste and sight tells you it is bread but it is not But here is no harm done 2. For himself plainly explains his meaning in his next Catechism Think not that you taste bread and wine saith he No what then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the antitypes of the body and blood and in this very place he calls bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a type 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore it is very ill rendred by the Roman Priests by Species which signifies accidental forms for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no such thing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not S. Cyrils word 3. He says it is not bread though the taste feel it so that is it is not meer bread which is an usual expression among the Fathers Non est panis communis says Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Justin Martyr just as S. Chrysostome says of Baptismal water it is not common water and as S. Cyril himself says of the sacramental bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not meer bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Lords body For if it were not that in some sence or other it were still meer bread but that it is not But this manner of speaking is not unusual in the holy Scriptures that restrained and modificated negatives be propounded in simple and absolute forms I have given them statutes which are not good Ezek. 20.25 I will have mercy and not sacrifice Hos. 6.6 They have not rejected thee but me 1 Sam. 8.7 It is not you that speak but the Spirit of my Father I came not to send peace but a sword S. Mat. 10.20 34. He that believeth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me And If I bear witness of my self my witness is not true S. John 5.31 which is expresly confronted by S. John 8.14 Though I bear record of my self yet my record is true which shews manifestly that the simple and absolute negative in the former place must in his signification be restrained So S. Paul speaks usually Henceforth I know no man according to the flesh 2 Cor. 5.16 We have no strife against flesh and blood Ephes. 6.12 And in the ancient Doctors nothing more ordinary than to express limited sences by unlimited words which is so known that I should lose my time and abuse the Readers patience if I should heap up instances So Irenaeus He that hath received the Spirit is no more flesh and blood but Spirit And Epiphanius affirms the same of the flesh of a temperate man It is not flesh but is changed into Spirit so we say of a drunken man and a furious person He is not a man but a beast And they speak thus particularly in the matter of the holy Sacrament as appears in the instances above
expounding the Sacrament Nothing needs to be plainer By the way let me observe this that the words cited by Tertullian out of Jeremy are expounded and recited too but by allusion For there are no such words in the Hebrew Text which is thus to be rendred Corrumpanus veneno cibum ejus and so cannot be referred to the Sacrament unless you will suppose that he fore-signified the poysoning the Emperour by a consecrated wafer But as to the figure this is often said by him for in the first book against Marcion he hath these words again nec reprobavit panem quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat etiam in Sacramentis propriis egens mendicitatibus creatoris He refused not bread by which he represents his own body wanting or using in the Sacraments the meanest things of the Creator For it is not to be imagined that Tertullian should attempt to perswade Marcion that the bread was really and properly Christs body but that he really delivered his body on the Cross that both in the old Testament and here himself gave a figure of it in bread and wine for that was it which the Marcionites denied saying on the cross no real humanity did suffer and he confutes them by saying these are figures and therefore denote a truth 8. However these men are resolved that this new answer shall please them and serve their turn yet some of their fellows great Clerks as themselves did shrink under the pressure of it as not being able to be pleased with so laboured and improbable an answer For Harding against Juel hath these words speaking of this place which interpretation is not according to the true sence of Christs words although his meaning swerve not from the truth And B. Rhenanus the author of the admonition to the Reader De quibusdam Tertulliani dogmat◠seems to confess this to be Tertullians error Error putantium corpus Christi in Eucharistiâ tantùm esse sub figurâ jam olim condemnatus The error of them that think the body of Christ is in the Eucharist only in a figure is now long since condemned But Garetius Bellarmine Justinian Coton Fevardentius Valentia and Vasquez in the recitation of this passage of Tertullian very fairly leave out the words that pinch them and which clears the article and bring the former words for themselves without the interpretation of id est figura corporis mei I may therefore without scruple reckon Tertullian on our side against whose plain words no real exception can lye himself expounding his own meaning in the pursuance of the figurative sence of this mystery 20. Concerning Origen I have already given an account in the ninth Paragraph and other places casually and made it appear that he is a direct opposite to the doctrine of Transubstantiation And the same also of Justin Martyr Paragraph the fifth number 9. Where also I have enumerated divers others who speak upon parts of this question on which the whole depends whither I refer the Reader Only concerning Justin Martyr I shall recite these words of his against Tryphon Figura fuit panis Eucharistiae quem in recordationem passionis facere praecepit The bread of the Eucharist was a figure which Christ the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his passion 21. Clemens Alexandrinus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The blood of Christ is twofold the one is carnal by which we are redeemed from death the other spiritual viz. by which we are anointed And this is to drink the blood of Jesus to be partakers of the incorruption of our Lord. But the power of the word is the Spirit as blood is of the flesh Therefore in a moderated proposition and convenience wine is mingled with water as the Spirit with a man And he receives in the Feast viz. Eucharistical tempered wine unto faith But the Spirit leadeth to incorruption but the mixture of both viz. of drink and the word is called the Eucharist which is praised and is a good gift or grace of which they who are partakers by faith are sanctified in body and soul. Here plainly he calls that which is in the Eucharist Spiritual blood and without repeating the whole discourse is easie and clear And that you may be certain of S. Clement his meaning he disputes in the same chapter against the Encratites who thought it not lawful to drink wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For be ye sure he also did drink wine for he also was a man and he blessed wine when he said Take drink 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my blood the blood of the vine for that word that was shed for many for the remission of sins it signifies allegorically a holy stream of gladness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that the thing which had been blessed was wine he shewed again saying to his disciples I will not drink of the fruit of this vine till I drink it new with you in my fathers kingdom Now S. Clement proving by Christs sumption of the Eucharist that he did drink wine must mean the Sacramental Symbol to be truly wine and Christs blood allegorically that holy stream of gladness or else he had not concluded by that argument against the Encratites Upon which account these words are much to be valued because by our doctrine in this article he only could confute the Encratites as by the same doctrine explicated as we explicate it Tertullian confuted the Marcionites and Theodoret and Gelasius confuted the Nestorians and Eutychians if the doctrine of Transubstantiation had been true these four heresies had by them as to their particular arguments relating to this matter been unconfuted 22. S. Cyprian in his Tractate de unctione which Canisius Harding Bellarmine and Lindan cite hath these words Dedit itaque Dominus noster c. Therefore our Lord in his table in which he did partake his last banquet with his disciples with his own hands gave bread and wine but on the cross he gave to the souldiers his body to be wounded that in the Apostles the sincere truth and the true sincerity being more secretly imprinted he might expound to the Gentiles how wine and bread should be his flesh and blood and by what reasons causes might agree with effects and diverse names and kinds viz. bread and wine might be reduced to one essence and the signifying and the signified might be reckoned by the same words and in his third Epistle he hath these words Vinum quo Christi sanguis ostenditur wine by which Christs blood is showen or declared Here I might cry out as Bellarmine upon a much slighter ground Quid clariùs dici potuit But I forbear being content to enjoy the real benefits of these words without a triumph But I will use it thus far that it shall outweigh the words cited out of the tract de coenâ Domini by Bellarmine by the Rhemists by the Roman Catechism by Perron
that those who are under our Charges should know the force of the Resurrection of Christ and the conduct of the Spirit and live according to the purity of God and the light of the Gospel To this let us cooperate with all wisdom and earnestness and knowledge and spiritual understanding And there is no better way in the world to do this than by ministring to persons singly in the conduct of their Repentance which as it is the work of every man so there are but few persons who need not the conduct of a spiritual guide in the beginnings and progressions of it To the assistance of this work I have now put my Symbol having by the sad experience of my own miseries and the calamities of others to whose restitution I have been called to minister been taught something of the secret of Souls and I have reason to think that the words of our dearest Lord to S. Peter were also spoken to me Tu autem conversus confirma fratres I hope I have received many of the mercies of a repenting sinner and I have felt the turnings and varieties of spiritual entercourses and I have often observed the advantages in ministring to others and am most confident that the greatest benefits of our office may with best effect be communicated to souls in personal and particular Ministrations In the following book I have given advices and have asserted many truths in order to all this I have endeavoured to break in pieces almost all those propositions upon the confidence of which men have been negligent of severe and strict living I have cancell'd some false grounds upon which many answers in Moral Theologie us'd to be made to inquiries in Cases of Conscience I have according to my weak ability described all the necessities and great inducement of a holy life and have endeavoured to do it so plainly that it may be useful to every man and so inoffensively that it may hurt no man I know but one Objection which I am likely to meet withall excepting those of my infirmity and disability which I cannot answer but by protesting the piety of my purposes but this only that in the Chapter of Original sin I speak otherwise than is spoken commonly in the Church of England whos 's ninth Article affirms that the natural propensity to evil and the perpetual lusting of the flesh against the spirit deserves the anger of God and damnation against which I so earnestly seem to dispute in the sixth Chapter of my Book To this I answer that it is one thing to say a thing in its own nature deserves damnation and another to say it is damnable to all those persons in whom it is subjected The thing it self that is our corrupted nature or our nature of corruption does leave us in the state of separation from God by being unable to bear us to Heaven imperfection of nature can never carry us to the perfections of glory and this I conceive to be all that our Church intends for that in the state of nature we can only fall short of Heaven and be condemn'd to a poena damni is the severest thing that any sober person owns and this I say that Nature alone cannot bring us to God without the regeneration of the Spirit and the grace of God we can never go to Heaven but because this Nature was not spoil'd by Infants but by persons of reason and we are all admitted to a new Covenant of Mercy and Grace made with Adam presently after his fall that is even before we were born as much as we were to a participation of sin before we were born no man can perish actually for that because he is reconcil'd by this He that says every sin is damnable and deserves the anger of God says true but yet some persons that sin of mere infirmity are accounted by God in the rank of innocent persons So it is in this Article Concupiscence remains in the regenerate and yet concupiscence hath the nature of sin but it brings not condemnation These words explain the 〈◊〉 Original imperfection is such a thing as is even in the regenerate and it is of the nature of sin that is it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many but yet it is not daâ—â—ing because as it is subjected in unconsenting persons it loses its own natural venome and relation to guiltiness that is it may of it self in its abstracted nature be a sin and deserve Gods anger viz. in some persons in all them that consent to it but that which will always be in persons that shall never be damned that is in infants and regenerate shall 〈◊〉 damn them And this is the main of what I affirm And since the Church of England intended that Article against the Doctrine of the Pelagians I suppose I shall not be thought to recede from the spirit and sence of the Article though I use differing manners of expression because my way of explicating this question does most of all destroy the Pelagian Heresie since although I am desirous to acquit the dispensation of God and his Justice from my imputation or suspicion of wrong and am loth to put our sins upon the account of another yet I impute all our evils to the imperfections of our nature and the malice of our choice which does most of all demonstrate not only the necessity of Grace but also of Infant Baptism and then to accuse this Doctrine of Pelagianism or any newer name of Heresie will seem like impotency and weakness of spirit but there will be nothing of truth or learning in it And although this Article was penn'd according to the style of the Schools as they then did loâ—e to speak yet the hardest word in it is capable of such a sence as complies with the intendment of that whole sixth Chapter For though the Church of England professes her self fallible and consequently that all her truths may be peaceably improved yet I do think that she is not actually deceiv'd and also that divers eminently learned do consent in my sence of that Article However I am so truly zealous for her honour and peace that I wholly submit all that I say there or any where else to her most prudent judgment And though I may most easily be deceived yet I have given my reasons for what I say and desire to be tried by them not by prejudice and numbers and zeal and if any man resolves to understand the Article in any other sence than what I have now explicated all that I shall say is that it may be I cannot reconcile my Doctrine to his explication it is enough that it is consistent with the Article it self in its best understanding and compliance with the truth it self and the justification of God However he that explicates the Article and thinks it means as he says does all the honour he can to the Authority whose words if he does not understand yet the sanction
men are much mistaken some in their opinions concerning the truth of them as believing them to be all true some concerning their purpose as thinking them sufficient not only to condemn all those opinions there called heretical but to be a precedent to all Ages of the Church to be free and forward in calling Heretick But he that considers the Catalogues themselves as they are collected by Epiphanius Philastrius and S. Austin shall find that many are reckoned for Hereticks for opinions in matters disputable and undetermined and of no consequence and in these Catalogues of Hereticks there are men numbred for Hereticks which by every side respectively are acquitted so that there is no company of men in the world that admit these Catalogues as good Records or sufficient sentences of condemnation For the Churches of the Reformation I am certain they acquit Aerius for denying prayer for the dead and the Eustathians for denying invocation of Saints And I am partly of opinion that the Church of Rome is not willing to call the Collyridians Hereticks for offering a Cake to the Virgin Mary unless she also will run the hazard of the same sentence for offering Candles to her And that they will be glad with S. Austin l. 6. de haeres c. 86. to excuse the Tertullianists for picturing God in a visible corporal representment And yet these Sects are put in the black Book by Epiphanius and S. Austin and Isidore respectively I remember also that the Osseni are called Hereticks because they refused to worship towards the East and yet in that dissent I find not the malignity of a Heresie nor any thing against an Article of Faith or good manners and it being only in circumstance it were hard if they were otherwise pious men and true believers to send them to Hell for such a trifle The Parermeneutae refused to follow other mens dictates like sheep but would expound Scripture according to the best evidence themselves could find and yet were called Hereticks whether they expounded true or no. The Pauliciani for being offended at crosses the Proclians for saying in a regenerate man all his sins were not quite dead but only curbed and asswaged were called Hereticks and so condemned for ought I know for affirming that which all pious men feel in themselves to be too true And he that will consider how numerous the catalogues are and to what a volume they are come in their last collections to no less than five hundred and twenty for so many heresies and Hereticks are reckoned by Prateolus may think that if a re-trenchment were justly made of truths and all impertinencies and all opinions either still disputable or less considerable the number would much decrease and therefore that the Catalogues are much amiss and the name Heretick is made a Terriculamentum to affright people from their belief or to discountenance the persons of men and disrepute them that their Schooles may be empty and their Disciples few 20. So that I shall not need to instance how that some men were called Hereticks by Philastrius for rejecting the translation of the Lxx. and following the Bible of Aquila wherein the great faults mentioned by Philastrius are that he translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Christum but unctum Dei and instead of Emanuel writes Deus nobiscum But this most concerns them of the Primitive Church with whom the translation of Aquila was in great reputation is enim veluti plus à quibusdam ..... intellexisse laudatur It was supposed he was a great Clerk and understood more than ordinary it may be he did But whether yea or no yet since the other Translators by the confession of Philastrius quaedam praetermisisse necessitate urgente cogerentur if some wise men or unwise did follow a Translatour who understood the Original well for so Aquila had learnt amongst the Jews It was hard to call men Hereticks for following his Translation especially since the other Bibles which were thought to have in them contradictories and it was confessed had omitted some things were excused by necessity and the others necessity of following Aquila when they had no better was not at all considered nor a less crime than heresy laid upon their score Such another was the heresy of the Quartodecimani for the Easterlings were all proclaimed Hereticks for keeping Easter after the manner of the East and as Socrates and Nicephorus report the Bishop of Rome was very forward to Excommunicate all the Bishops of the lesser Asia for observing the Feast according to the Tradition of their Ancestors though they did it modestly quietly and without faction and although they pretended and were as well able to prove their Tradition from S. John of so observing it as the Western Church could prove their Tradition derivative from S. Peter and S. Paul If such things as these make up the Catalogues of Hereticks as we see they did their accounts differ from the Precedents they ought to have followed that is the censures Apostolical and therefore are unsafe precedents for us and unless they took the liberty of using the word heresy in a lower sence than the world now doth since the Councils have been forward in pronouncing Anathema and took it only for a distinct sence and a differing perswasion in matters of opinion and minute Articles we cannot excuse the persons of the men but if they intended the crime of heresy against those opinions as they laid them down in their Catalogues that crime I say which is a work of the flesh which excludes from the Kingdom of Heaven all that I shall say against them is that the causeless curse shall return empty and no man is damned the sooner because his enemy cryes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they that were the Judges and Accusers might erre as well as the persons accused and might need as charitable construction of their opinions and practices as the other And of this we are sure they had no warrant from any rule of Scripture or practice Apostolical for driving so furiously and hastily in such decretory sentences But I am willing rather to believe their sence of the word Heresie was more gentle than with us it is and for that they might have warrant from Scripture 21. But by the way I observe that although these Catalogues are a great instance to shew that they whose Age and spirits were far distant from the Apostles had also other judgments concerning Faith and heresy than the Apostles had and the Ages Apostolical yet these Catalogues although they are reports of heresies in the second and third Ages are not to be put upon the account of those Ages not to be reckoned as an instance of their judgment which although it was in some degrees more culpable than that of their Predecessors yet in respect of the following Ages it was innocent and modest But these Catalogues I speak of were set down according to the sence of the then present
good For the great one of una fides unum baptisma did not conclude it to their understandings who were of the other opinion and men famous in their generations for it was no Argument that they who had been baptized by Johns Baptism should not be baptized in the name of Jesus because unus Deus unum baptisma and as it is still one Faith which a man confesseth several times and one Sacrament of the Eucharist though a man often communicates so it might be one baptism though often ministred And the unity of baptism might not be derived from the unity of the ministration but from the unity of the Religion into which they are baptized though baptized a thousand times yet because it was still in the name of the holy Trinity still into the death of Christ it might be unum baptisme Whether Saint Cyprian Firmilian and their Collegues had this discourse or no I know not I am sure they might have had much better to have evacuated the force of that Argument although I believe they had the wrong cause in hand But this is it that I say that when a Question is so undetermined in Scripture that the Arguments rely only upon such mystical places whence the best fancies can draw the greatest variety and such which perhaps were never intended by the holy Ghost it were good the Rivers did not swell higer than the Fountain and the confidence higher than the Argument and evidence for in this case there could not any thing be so certainly proved as that the disagreeing party should deserve to be condemned by a sentence of Excommunication for disbelieving it and yet they were which I wonder at so much the more because they who as it was since judg'd had the right cause had not any sufficient Argument from Scripture not so much as such mystical Arguments but did fly to the Tradition of the Church in which also I shall afterward shew they had nothing that was absolutely certain 3. I consider that there are divers places of Scripture containing in them mysteries and Questions of great concernment and yet the fabrick and constitution is such that there is no certain mark to determine whether the sence of them should be literal or figurative I speak not here concerning extrinsecal means of determination as traditive interpretations Councils Fathers Popes and the like I shall consider them afterward in their several places But here the subject matter being concerning Scripture in its own capacity I say there is nothing in the nature of the thing to determine the sence and meaning but it must be gotten out as it can and that therefore it is unreasonable that what of it self is ambiguous should be understood in its own prime sence and intention under the pain of either a sin or an Anathema I instance in that famous place from whence hath sprung that Question of Transubstantiation Hoc est corpus meum The words are plain and clear apt to be understood in the literal sence and yet this sence is so hard as it does violence to reason and therefore it is the Question whether or no it be not a figurative speech But here what shall we have to determine it What mean soever we take and to what sence you will expound it you shall be put to give an account why you expound other places of Scripture in the same case to quite contrary sences For if you expound it literally then besides that it seems to intrench upon the words of our blessed Saviour The words that I speak they are Spirit and they are life that is to be spiritually understood and it is a miserable thing to see what wretched shifts are used to reconcile the literal sence to these words and yet to distinguish it from the Capernaitical phancy but besides this why are not those other sayings of Christ expounded literally I am a Vine I am the Door I am a Rock Why do we fly to a figure in those parallel words This is the Covenant which I make between me and you and yet that Covenant was but the sign of the Covenant and why do we fly to a figure in a precept as well as in mystery and a proposition If thy right hand offend thee cut it off and yet we have figures enough to save a limb If it be said because reason tells us these are not to be expounded according to the letter This will be no plea for them who retain the literal exposition of the other instance against all reason against all Philosophy against all sense and against two or three sciences But if you expound these words figuratively besides that you are to contest against a world of prejudices you give your self the liberty which if others will use when either they have a reason or a necessity so to do they may perhaps turn all into Allegory and so may evacuate any precept and elude any Argument Well so it is that very wise men have expounded things Allegorically when they should have expounded them literally So did the famous Origen who as St. Hierom reports of him turned Paradise into an Allegory that he took away quite the truth of the Story and not only Adam was turned out of the Garden but the Garden it self out of Paradise Others expound things literally when they should understand them in Allegory so did the Ancient Papias understand Apocal. 20. Christs Millenary raign upon earth and so depressed the hopes of Christianity and their desires to the longing and expectation of temporal pleasures and satisfactions and he was followed by Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Lactantius and indeed the whole Church generally till S. Austin and S. Hierom's time who first of any whose works are extant did reprove the errour If such great spirits be deceived in finding out what kind of sences be to be given to Scriptures it may well be endured that we who sit at their feet may also tread in the steps of them whose feet could not always tread aright 7. Fourthly I consider that there are some places of Scripture that have the selfe same expressions the same preceptive words the same reason and account in all appearance and yet either must be expounded to quite different sences or else we must renounce the Communion and the charities of a great part of Christendom And yet there is absolutely nothing in the thing or in its circumstances or in its adjuncts that can determine it to different purposes I instance in those great exclusive negatives for the necessity of both Sacraments Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ c. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis c. a non introibit in regnum coelorum for both these Now then the first is urged for the absolute indispensable necessity of baptism even in Infants insomuch that Infants go to part of Hell if inculpably both on their own and their Parents part they miss of baptism for that is the
chief Bishops assembled in the Council of Antioch in quibus erant Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus Nicomas ab Iconio Hierosolymorum praecipuus Sacerdos Hymenaeus vicinae huic urbis Cesareae Theotecnus and in the same place the Bishops of Pontus are called Ponti provinciae Sacerdotes Abilius apud Alexandriam tredecim annis Sacerdotio ministrato diem obiit for so long he was Bishop cui succedit Cerdon tertius in Sacerdotium Et Papias similiter apud Hierapolim Sacerdotium gerens for he was Bishop of Hierapolis saith Eusebius and the Bishop of the Province of Arles speaking of their first Bishop Trophimus ordained Bishop by S. Peter says quod prima inter Gallias Arelatensis civitas missum à Beatissimo Petro Apostolo sanctum Trophimum habere meruit Sacerdotem *** The Bishop also was ever design'd when Antistes Ecclesiae was the word Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes saith Eusebius out of Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the name in Greek and used for the Bishop by Justin Martyr and is of the same authority and use with Praelatus and praepositus Ecclesiae Antistes autem Sacerdos dictus ab eo quod antestat Primus est enim in ordine Ecclesiae supra se nullum habet saith S. Isidore *** But in those things which are of no Question I need not insist One title more I must specify to prevent misprision upon a mistake of theirs of a place in S. Ambrose The Bishop is sometimes called Primus Presbyter Nam Timotheum Episcopum à se creatum Presbyterum vocat quia Primi Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente eo sequens ei succederet Elections were made of Bishops out of the colledge of Presbyters Presbyteri unum ex se electum Episcopum nominabant saith S. Hierome but at first this election was made not according to merit but according to seniority and therefore Bishops were called Primi Presbyteri that 's S. Ambrose his sence But S. Austin gives another Primi Presbyteri that is chief above the Presbyters Quid est Episcopus nisi Primus Presbyter h. e. summus Sacerdos saith he And S. Ambrose himself gives a better exposition of his words than is intimated in that clause before Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est Vterque enim Sacerdos est sed Episcopus Primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non omnis Presbyter Episcopus Hic enim Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros Primus est The Bishop is Primus Presbyter that is Primus Sacerdos h. e. Princeps est Sacerdotum so he expounds it not Princeps or Primus inter Presbyteros himself remaining a meer Presbyter but Princeps Presbyterorum for Primus Presbyter could not be Episcopus in another sence he is the chief not the senior of the Presbyters Nay Princeps Presbyterorum is used in a sence lower than Episcopus for Theodoret speaking of S. John Chrysostome saith that having been the first Presbyter at Antioch yet refused to be made Bishop for a long time Johannes enim qui diutissimè Princeps fuit Presbyterorum Antiochiae ac saepe electus praesul perpetuus vitator dignitatis illius de hoc admirabili solo pullulavit *** The Church also in her first language when she spake of Praepositus Ecclesiae meant the Bishop of the Diocess Of this there are innumerable examples but most plentifully in S. Cyprian in his 3 4 7 11 13 15 23 27 Epistles and in Tertullian his book ad Martyres and infinite places more Of which this advantage is to be made that the Primitive Church did generally understand those places of Scripture which speak of Prelates or Praepositi to be meant of Bishops Obedite praepositis Heb. 13. saith Saint Paul Obey your Prelates or them that are set over you Praepositi autem Pastores sunt saith Saint Austin Prelates are they that are Pastors But Saint Cyprian summes up many of them together and insinuates the several relations expressed in the several compellations of Bishops For writing against Florentius Pupianus ac nisi saith he apud te purgati fuerimus .... ecce jam sex annis nec fraternitas habuerit Episcopum nec plebs praepositum nec grex Pastorem nec Ecclesia gubernatorem nec Christus antistitem nec Deus Sacerdotes and all this he means of himself who had then been six years Bishop of Carthage a Prelate of the people a governour to the Church a Pastor to the flock a Priest of the most high God a Minister of Christ. The summe is this When we find in antiquity any thing asserted of any order of the hierarchy under the names of Episcopus or Princeps Sacerdotum or Presbyterorum Primus or Pastor or Doctor or Pontifex or Major or Primus Sacerdos or Sacerdotium Ecclesiae habens or Antistes Ecclesiae or Ecclesiae sacerdos unless there be a specification and limiting of it to a parochial and inferior Minister it must be understood of Bishops in its present acceptation For these words are all by way of eminency and most of them by absolute appropriation and singularity the appellations and distinctive names of Bishops SECT XXVIII And these were a distinct Order from the rest BUT 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Philosopher and this their distinction of names did amongst the Fathers of the Primitive Church denote a distinction of calling and office supereminent to the rest For first Bishops are by all antiquity reckoned as a distinct office of Clergy Si quis Presbyter aut Diaconus aut quilibet de numero Clericorum .... pergat ad alienam parochiam praeter Episcopi sui conscientiam c. So it is in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles and so it is there plainly distinguished as an office different from Presbyter and Deacon above thirty times in those Canons and distinct powers given to the Bishop which are not given to the other and to the Bishop above the other The Council of Ancyra inflicting censures upon Presbyters first then Deacons which had fallen in time of persecution gives leave to the Bishop to mitigate the pains as he sees cause Sed si ex Episcopis aliqui in iis vel afflictionem aliquam .... â—iderint in eorum potestate id esse The Canon would not suppose any Bishops to fall for indeed they seldome did but for the rest provision was made for both their penances and indulgence at the discretion of the Bishop And yet sometimes they did fall Optatus bewails it but withal gives evidence of their distinction of order Quid commemorem Laicos qui tunc in Ecclesiâ nullâ â—uerant dignitate suffulti Quid Ministros plurimos quid Diaconos in tertio quid Presbyteros in secundo Sacerdotio constitutos Ipsi apices Principes omnium aliqui Episcopi aliqua instrumenta Divinae Legis impiè tradiderunt The Laity the Ministers the Deacons the Presbyters nay the Bishops
Countries of Christendom till by Crusado's massacres and battels burnings and the constant Carnificia and butchery of the Inquisition which is the main prop of the Papacy and does more than Tu es Petrus they prevail'd far and near and men durst not oppose the evidence whereby they fought And now the wonder is out it is not strange that the Article hath been so readily entertained But in the Greek Church it could not prevail as appears not only in Cyril's book of late dogmatically affirming the Article in our sence but in the Answer of Cardinal Humbert to Nicetas who maintained the receiving the holy Sacrament does break the fast which it could not do if it were not what it seems bread and wine as well as what we believe it to be the body and blood of Christ. And now in prosecution of their strange improbable success they proceed to perswade all people that they are fools and do not know the measures of sence nor understand the words of Scripture nor can tell when any of the Fathers speak affirmatively or negatively and after many attempts made by diverse unprosperously enough as the thing did constrain and urge them a great Wit Cardinal Perron hath undertaken the Question and hath spun his thread so fine and twisted it so intricately and adorned it so sprucely with language and sophisms that although he cannot resist the evidence of truth yet he is too subtle for most mens discerning and though he hath been contested by potent adversaries and wise men in a better cause than his own yet he will alwayes make his Reader believe that he prevails which puts me in mind of what Thucydides told Archidamus the King of Sparta asking him whether he or Pericles were the better wrastler he told him that when he threw Pericles on his back he would with fine words perswade the people that he was not down at all and so he got the better So does he and is to all considering men a great argument of the danger that Articles of Religion are in and consequently mens perswasions and final interest when they fall into the hands of a witty man and a Sophister and one who is resolved to prevail by all means But truth is stronger than wit and can endure when the other cannot and I hope it will appear so in this Question which although it is managed by weak hands that is by mine yet to all impartial persons it must be certain and prevailing upon the stock of its own sincerity and derivation from God And now R. R. though this Question hath so often been disputed and some things so often said yet I was willing to bring it once more upon the stage hoping to add some clearness to it by fitting it with a good instrument and clear conveyance and representment by saying something new and very many which are not generally known and less generally noted and I thought there was a present necessity of it because the Emissaries of the Church of Rome are busie now to disturb the peace of consciences by troubling the persecuted and ejecting scruples into the infortunate who suspect every thing and being weary of all are most ready to change from the present They have got a trick to ask where is our Church now What is become of your Articles of your Religion We cannot answer them as they can be answered for nothing satisfies them but being prosperous and that we cannot pretend to but upon the accounts of the Cross and so we may indeed rejoyce and be exceeding glad because we hope that great is our reward in Heaven But although they are pleased to use an Argument that like Jonas Gourd or Sparagus is in season only at some times yet we according to the nature of Truth inquire after the truth of their Religion upon the account of proper and Theological Objections Our Church may be a beloved Church and dear to God though she be persecuted when theirs is in an evil condition by obtruding upon the Christian world Articles of Religion against all that which ought to be the instruments of credibility and perswasion by distorting and abusing the Sacraments by making error to be an art and that a man must be witty to make himself capable of being abused by out-facing all sence and reason by damning their brethren for not making their understanding servile and sottish by burning them they can get and cursing them that they cannot get by doing so much violence to their own reasons and forcing themselves to believe that no man ever spake against their new device by making a prodigious error to be necessary to salvation as if they were Lords of the Faith of Christendom But these men are grown to that strange triumphal gaety upon their joy that the Church of England as they think is destroyed that they tread upon her grave which themselves have digged for her who lives and pities them and they wonder that any man should speak in her behalf and suppose men do it out of spight and indignation and call the duty of her sons who are by persecution made more confident pious and zealous in defending those truths for which she suffers on all hands by the name of anger and suspect it of malicious vile purposes I wonder'd when I saw something of this folly in one that was her son once but is run away from her sorrow and disinherited himself because she was not able to give him a temporal portion and thinks he hath found out reasons enough to depart from the miserable I will not trouble him or so much as name him because if his words are as noted as they are publick every good man will scorn them if they be private I am not willing to publish his shame but leave him to consideration and repentance But for our dear afflicted Mother she is under the portion of a child in the state of discipline her government indeed hindered but her Worshippings the same the Articles as true and those of the Church of Rome as false as ever of which I hope the following book will be one great instance But I wish that all tempted persons would consider the illogical deductions by which these men would impose upon their consciences If the Church of England be destroyed then Transubstantiation is true which indeed had concluded well if that Article had only pretended false because the Church of England was prosperous But put the case the Turk should invade Italy and set up the Alcoran in S. Peters Church would it be endured that we should conclude that Rome was Antichristian because her temporal glory is defaced The Apostle in this case argued otherwise The Church of the Jews was cut off for their sins be not high-minded ô ye Gentiles but fear lest he also cut thee off it was counsel given to the Romans But though blessed be God our afflictions are great yet we can and do onjoy the same religion as the good Christians
word spiritual is therefore carefully to be observed lest the contention of both parties should seem trifling and to be for nothing We say that Christs body is in the Sacrament really but spiritually They say it is there really but spiritually For so Bellarmine is bold to say that the word may be allowed in this question Where now is the difference Here by spiritually they mean present after the manner of a Spirit by spiritually we mean present to our Spirits only that is so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that of Faith or spiritual susception but their way makes his body to be present no way but that which is impossibe and implies a contradiction a body not after the manner of a body a body like a spirit a body without a body and a sacrifice of body and blood without blood corpus incorporeum cruor incruentus They say that Christs body is truly present there as it was upon the Cross but not after the manner of all or any body but after that manner of being as an Angel is in a place That 's there spiritually But we by the real spiritual presence of Christ do understand Christ to be present as the Spirit of God is present in the hearts of the Faithful by blessing and grace and this is all which we mean besides the tropical and figurative presence 9. That which seems of hardest explication is the word corporaliter which I find that Melanchthon used saying corporaliter quoque communicatione carnis Christi Christum in nobis habitare which manner of speaking I have heard he avoided after he had conversed with Oecolampadius who was able then to teach him and most men in that question but the expression may become warrantable and consonant to our doctrine and means no more than really and without fiction or beyond a figure like that of S. Paul in Christ dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily upon which S. Austin says In ipso inhabitat plenitudo Divinitatis corporaliter quia in Templo habitaverat umbraliter and in S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are opposed which are a shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ that is the substance the reality the correlative of the type and figure the thing signified and among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies solidare to make firm real and consistent but among the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or body signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every thing that is produced from nothing saith Phavorinus that is every thing that is real extra non ens that hath a proper being so that we receiving Christ in the Sacrament corporally or bodily understand that we do it really by the ministery of our bodies receiving him unto our souls And thus we affirm Christs body to be present in the Sacrament not only in type or figure but in blessing and real effect that is more than in the types of the Law the shadows were of the Law but the body is of Christ. And besides this the word corporally may be very well used when by it is only understood a corporal sign So S. Cyril of Jerusalem in his third Catechism says that the holy Ghost did descend corporally in the likeness of a Dove that is in a type or representment of a Doves body for so he and many of the Ancients did suppose and so he again uses the word Jesus Christ as a man did inspire the holy Spirit corporally into his Apostles where by corporally it is plain he means by a corporal or material sign or symbol viz. by breathing upon them and saying receive ye the holy Ghost In either of these sences if the word be taken it may indifferently be used in this question 10. I have been the more careful to explain the question and the use of these words according to our meaning in the question for these two reasons 1. Because until we are agreed upon the signification of the words they are equivocal and by being used on both sides to several purposes sometime are pretended as instruments of union but indeed effect it not but sometimes displease both parties while each supects the word in a wrong sence And this hath with very ill effect been observed in the conferences for composing the difference in this question particularly that of Poissy where it was propounded in these words Credimus in usu coenae Dominicae verè reipsâ substantialiter sen in substantiâ verum corpus sanguinem Christi spirituali ineffabili modo esse exhiberi sumi à fidelibus communicantibus Beza and Gallasius for the Reformed and Espencaeus and Monlucius for the Romanists undertook to propound it to their parties But both rejected it for though the words were not disliked yet they suspected each others sence But now that I have declared what is meant by us in these words they are made useful in the explicating the question 2. But because the words do perfectly declare our sence and are owned publickly in our doctrine and manner of speaking it will be in vain to object against us those sayings of the Fathers which use the same expressions for if by vertue of those words really substantially corporally verily and indeed and Christs body and blood the Fathers shall be supposed to speak for transubstantiation they may as well suppose it to be our doctrine too for we use the same words and therefore those authorities must signifie nothing against us unless these words can be proved in them to signifie more than our sence of them does import and by this truth many very many of their pretences are evacuated 11. One thing more I am to note in order to the same purposes that in the explication of this question it is much insisted upon that it be inquired whether when we say we believe Christs body to be really in the Sacrament we mean that body that flesh that was born of the Virgin Mary that was crucified dead and buried I answer I know none else that he had or hath there is but one body of Christ natural and glorified but he that says that body is glorified which was crucified says it is the same body but not after the same manner and so it is in the Sacrament we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ that was broken and powred forth for there is no other body no other blood of Christ but though it is the same which we eat and drink yet it is in another manner And therefore when any of the Protestant Divines or any of the Fathers deny that body which was born of the Virgin Mary that which was crucified to be eaten in the Sacrament as Bertram as S. Hierome as Clemens Alexandrinus expresly affirm the meaning is easie they intend that it is not eaten in a natural sence and then calling it corpus spirituale the word spiritual is not a substantial predication
is in order to the act and therefore is nothing of it self and is only the imperfection of or passage to the act if therefore the act were not necessary neither were the disposition but if the act be necessary then the desire which is but the disposition to the act is not sufficient As if it be necessary to go from Oxford to London then it is necessary that you go to Henly or Vxbridge but if it be necessary to be at London it is not sufficient to go to Vxbridge but if it be not necessary to be at London neither is it necessary to go so far But this distinction as it is commonly used is made to serve ends and is grown to that inconvenience that repentance it self is said to be sufficient if it be only in desire for so they must that affirm repentance in the Article of death after a wicked life to be sufficient when it is certain there can be nothing actual but infective desires and all the real and most material events of it cannot be performed but desired only But whosoever can be excused from the actual susception of a Sacrament can also in an equal necessity be excused from the desire and no man can be tied to an absolute irrespective desire of that which cannot be had and if it can the desire alone will not serve the turn And indeed a desire of a thing when we know it cannot be had is a temptation either to impatience or a scruple and why or how can a man be obliged to desire that to be done which in all his circumstances is not necessary it should be done A preparation of mind to obey in those circumstances in which it is possible that is in which he is obliged is the duty of every man but this is not an explicite desire of the actual susception which in his case is not obligatory because it is impossible And lastly such a desire of a thing is wholly needless because in the present case the thing it self is not necessary therefore neither is the desire neither did God ever require it but in order to the act But however if we find by discourse that for all these decretory words the desire can suffice I demand by what instrument is that accepted whether by faith or no I suppose it will not be denied But if it be not denied then a spiritual manducation can perform the duty of those words for susception of the Sacrament in desire is at the most but a spiritual manducation And S. Austin affirms that Baptism can perform the duty of those words if Beda quotes him right for in his Sermon to Infants and in his third book de peccatorum meritis remissione he affirms that in Baptism Infants receive the Body of Christ So that these words may as well be understood of Baptism as of the Eucharist and of Faith better than either 5. The men of Capernaum understood Christ to speak these words of his natural flesh and blood and were scandalized at it and Christ reproved their folly by telling them his words were to be understood in a spiritual sence So that if men would believe him that knew best the sence of his own words there need be no scruple of the sence I do not understand these words in a fleshly sence but in a spiritual saith Christ The flesh profiteth nothing the words that I have spoken they are spirit and they are life Now besides that the natural sence of the words hath in it too much of the sence of the offended Disciples the reproof and consultation of it is equally against the Romanists as against the Capernaites For we contend it is spiritual so Christ affirmed it they that deny the Spiritual sence and affirm the Natural are to remember that Christ reproved all sences of these words that were not spiritual And by the way let me observe that the expression of some chief men among the Romanists are so rude and crass that it will be impossible to excuse them from the understanding the words in the sence of the men of Capernaum for as they understood Christ to mean his true flesh natural and proper so do they as they thought Christ intended they should tear him with their teeth and suck his blood for which they were offended so do these men not only think so but say so and are not offended So said Alanus Apertissimè loquimur corpus Christi verè à nobis contrectari manducari circumgestari dentibus teri sensibiliter sacrificari non minùs quà m ante consecrationem panis And they frequently quote those Metaphors of S. Chrysostom which he preaches in the height of his Rhetorick as testimonies of his opinion in the doctrinal part and Berengarius was forced by Pope Nicholas to recant in those very words affirming that Christâ—s body sensualiter non solùm Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri that Christ's flesh was sensually not only in the Sacrament but in truth of the thing to be handled by the Priests hands to be broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful Insomuch that the gloss on the Canon de Consecratione dist 2. cap. Ego Berengarius affirms it to be a worse heresie than that of Berengarius unless it be so soberly understood to which also Cassander assents and indeed I thought that the Romanists had been glad to separate their own opinion from the carnal conceit of the men of Capernaum and the offended Disciples supposing it to be a great Objection against their Doctrine that it was the same with the men of Capernaum and is only finer dressed But I find that Bellarmine owns it even in them in their rude circumstances for he affirms that Christ corrected them not for supposing so but reproved them for not believing it to be so And indeed himself sayes as much Corpus Christi verè ac propriè manducari etiam corpore in Eucharistiâ the body of Christ is truly and properly manducated or chewed with the body in the Eucharist and to take off the foulness of the expression by avoiding a worse he is pleased to speak nonsence Nam ad rationem manducationis non est mera attritio sed satis est sumptio transmissio ab ore ad stomachum per instrumena humana A thing may be manducated or chewed though it be not attrite or broken If he had said it might be swallowed and not chewed he had said true but to say it may be chewed without chewing or breaking is a Riddle fit to spring from the miraculous doctrine of Transubstantiation and indeed it is a pretty device that we take the flesh and swallow down flesh and yet manducate or chew no flesh and yet we swallow down only what we manducate Accipite manducate were the words in the institution And indeed according to this device there were no difference between eating and drinking and
divinae vocationi Because the Word was made flesh therefore he was desired for life to be devoured by hearing to be ruminated or chewed by the understanding to be digested by faith For a little before he called his flesh also celestial bread still or all the way urging by an allegory of necessary food the memory of their Fathers who preferrd the bread and flesh of Egypt before the Divine calling 11. S. Athanasius or who is the Author of the Tractate upon the words Quicunque dixerit verbum in filium hominis in his works saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The things which he speaks are not carnal but spiritual For to how many might his body suffice for meat that it should become the nourishment of the whole World But for this it was that he put them in mind of the ascension of the Son of man into Heaven that he might draw them off from carnal and corporal sences and that they might learn that his flesh which he called meat was from above heavenly and spiritual nourishment For saith he the things that I have spoken they are spirit and they are life 12. But Origen is yet more decretory in this affair Est in novo Testamento litera quae occidit eum qui non spiritualiter ea quae dicuntur adverterit si enim secundùm literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam biberitis sanguinem meam occidit haec litera If we understand these words of Christ Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood literally this letter kills For there is in the new Testament a letter that kills him who does not spiritually understand those things which are spoken 13. S. Ambrose not only expounds it in a spiritual sence but plainly denyes the proper and natural Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus sed ille panis vitae aeternae qui animae nostrae substantiam sulcit That is not the bread of life which goes into the body but that which supports the substance of the soul And fide tangitur fide videtur non tangitur corpore non oculis comprehenditur this bread is touch'd by faith it is seen by faith and without all peradventure that this is to be understood of eating and drinking Christ by faith is apparent from Christ's own words verse 35. I am the bread of life he that cometh to me shall not hunger and he that believeth on me shall not thirst coming to Christ is eating him believing him is drinking his blood It is not touch'd by the body it is not seen with the eyes S. Chrysostom in his 47. Homily upon this Chapter of S. John expounds these words in a spiritual sence for these things saith he are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as have in them nothing carnal nor any carnal consequence 14. S. Austin gave the same exposition Vt quid paras dentes ventrem crede manducasti and again Credere in eum hoc est manducare panem vivum Qui credit in eum manducat 15. Theophylact makes the spiritual sence to be the only answer in behalf of our not being Canibals or devourers of mans flesh as the men of Capernaum began to dream and the men of Rome though in better circumstances to this day dream on Putabant isti quòd Deus cogeret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quia enim nos hoc spiritualiter intelligimus neque carnium voratores sumus imò sanctificamur per talem cibum non sumus carnis voratores The men of Capernaum thought Christ would compel them to devour mans flesh But because we understand this spiritually therefore we are not devourers of mans flesh but are sanctified by this meat Perfectly to the same sence and almost in the very words Theodorus Bishop of Hieraclea is quoted in the Greek Catena upon John 16. It were easie to add that Eusebius calls the words of Christ his flesh and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that so also does S. Hierom saying that although it may be understood in mystery tamen veriùs corpus Christi sanguis ejus sermo scripturarum est that so does Clemens Alexandrinus that S. Basil sayes that his Doctrine and his mystical coming is his flesh and blood that S. Bernard sayes to imitate his life and communicate with his passion is to eat his flesh But I decline for the present to insist upon these because all of them excepting S. Hierom only may be supposed to be mystical Expositions which may be true and yet another Exposition may be true too It may suffice that it is the direct sence of Tertullian Origen Athanasius S. Ambrose S. Austin and Theophylact that these woâ—ds of Christ in the sixth of S. John are not to be understood in the natural or proper but in the spiritual sence The spiritual they declare not to be the mystical but the literal sence and therefore their testimonies cannot be eluded by any such pretence 17. And yet after all this suppose that Christ in these words did speak of the Sacramental manducation and affirm'd that the bread which he would give should be his flesh what is this to Transubstantiation That Christ did speak of the Sacrament as well as of any other mystery of this amongst others that is of all the wayes of taking him is to me highly probable Christ is the food of our souls this food we receive in at our ears mouth our hearts and the allusion is plainer in the Sacrament than in any other external right because of the similitude of bread and eating which Christ used upon occasion of the miracle of the loaves which introduc'd all that discourse But then this comes in only as it is an act of faith for the meat which Christ gives is to be taken by faith himself being the Expounder Now the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist being acts and Symbols and consignations of faith and effects of believing that is of the first and principal receiving him by faith in his words and submission to his Doctrine may well be meant here not by vertue of the words for the whole form of expression is Metaphorical not at all proper but by the proportion of reason and nature of his effect it is an act or manner of receiving Christ and an issue of faith and therefore is included in the mystery The food that Christ said he would give is his flesh which he would give for the life of the world viz. to be crucified and killed And from that verse forward he doth more particularly refer to his death for he speaks of bread only before or meat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but now he speaks of flesh and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread and drink and therefore by Analogy he may allude to the Sacrament which is his similitude and representation but this is but the meaning of the
second or third remove if here Christ begins to change the particulars of his discourse it can primarily relate to nothing but his death upon the Cross at which time he gave his flesh for the life of the world and so giving it it became meat the receiving this gift was a receiving of life for it was given for the life of the world The manner of receiving it is by faith and hearing the word of God submitting our understanding the digesting this meat is imitating the life of Christ conforming to his doctrine and example and as the Sacraments are instruments or acts of this manducation so they come under this discourse and no otherwise 18. But to return This very allegory of the word of God to be called meat and particularly Manna which in this Chapter Christ particularly alludes to is not unusual in the old Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses said unto them This is the word which the Lord hath given us to eat This is the word which the Lord hath ordained you see what is the food of the soul even the eternal Word of God c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Word of God the most honourable and eldest of things is called Mana and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The soul is nourished by the Word qui pastus pulcherrimus est animorum 19. And therefore now I will resume those testimonies of Clemens Alexandrinus of Eusebius S. Basil S. Hierome and S. Bernard which I wav'd before all agreeing upon this exposition that the word of God Christs doctrine is the flesh he speaks of and the receiving it and practising it are the eating his flesh for this sence is the literal and proper and S. Hierom is express to affirm that the other exposition is mystical and that this is the more true and proper and therefore the saying of Bellarmine that they only give the mystical sence is one of his confident sayings without reason or pretence of proof and whereas he adds that they do not deny that these words are also understood literally of the Sacrament I answer it is sufficient that they agree in this sence and the other Fathers do so expound it with an exclusion to the natural sence of eating Christ in the Sacrament particularly this appears in the testimonies of Origen and Saint Ambrose above quoted to which I add the words of Eusebius in the third book of his Theologia Ecclesiastica expounding the 63. verse of the sixth of Saint John he brings in Christ speaking thus Think not that I speak of this flesh which I bear and do not imagine that I appoint you to drink this sensible and corporal blood But know ye that the words which I have spoken are spirit and life Nothing can be fuller to exclude their interpretation and to affirm ours though to do so be not usual unless they were to expound Scripture in opposition to an adversary and to require such hard conditions in the sayings of men that when they speak against Titius they shall be concluded not to speak against Cajus if they do not clap their contrary negative to their positive affirmative though Titius and Cajus be against one another in the cause is a device to escape rather than to intend truth and reality in the discourses of men I conclude It is notorious and evident what Erasmus notes upon this place Hunc locum veteres interpretantur de doctrinâ coelesti sic enim dicit panem suum ut frequenter dixit sermonem suum The Ancient Fathers expound this place of the heavenly doctrine so he calls the bread his own as he said often the word to be his And if the concurrent testimonies of Origen Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus S. Basil Athanasius Eusebius S. Hierom S. Ambrose S. Austin Theophylact and S. Bernard are a good security for the sence of a place of Scripture we have read their evidence and may proceed to sentence 20. But it was impossible but these words falling upon the allegory of bread and drink and signifying the receiving Christ crucified and communicating with his passion in all the wayes of Faith and Sacrament should also meet with as allegorical expounders and for the likeness of expression be referr'd to sacramental manducation And yet I said this cannot at all infer Transubstantiation though sacramental manducation were only and principally intended For if it had been spoken of the Sacrament the words had been verified in the spiritual sumption of it for as Christ is eaten by faith out of the Sacrament so is he also in the Sacrament as he is real and spiritual meat to the worthy Hearer so is he to the worthy Communicant as Christ's flesh is life to all that obey him so to all that obediently remember him so Christ's flesh is meat indeed however it be taken if it be taken spiritually but not however it be taken if it be taken carnally He is nutritive in all the wayes of spiritual manducation but not in all the wayes of natural eating by their own confession nor in any by ours And therefore it is a vain confidence to run away with the conclusion if they should gain one of the premises But the truth is this It is neither properly spoken of the Sacrament neither if it were would it prove any thing of Transubstantiation 21. I will not be alone in my assertion though the reasonableness and evidence would bear me out Saint Austin saith the same Spiritualiter intelligite quod loquutus sum vobis Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis Sacramentum aliquod commendavi vobis spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit nos That which I have spoken is to be understood spiritually ye are not to eat that body which ye see I have commended a Sacrament to you which being understood spiritually will give you life where besides that he gives testimony to the main question on our behalf he also makes sacramentally and spiritually to be all one And again Vt quia jam similitudinem mortis ejus in baptismo accipimus similitudinem quoque sanguinis carnis sumamus ita ut veritas non desit in sacramento ridiculum nullum fiat in Paganis quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus That as we receive the similitude of his Death in Baptism so we may also receive the likeness of his Flesh and Blood so that neither truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor the Pagans ridiculously affirm that we should drink the blood of the crucified Man Nothing could be spoken more plain in this Question We receive Christ's body in the Eucharist as we are baptized into his death that is by figure and likeness In the Sacrament there is a verity or truth of Christ's body and yet no drinking of blood or eating of flesh so as the Heathen may calumniate us by saying we do that which the men of Capernaum thought Christ taught
Symbol the name of his body and S. Cyprian speaks expresly to this purpose as you may see above Sect. 5. n. 9. 9. Sixthly The strange inconveniences and impossibilities the scandals and errours the fancy of the Capernaites and the temptations to faith arising from the literal sence of these words have been in other cases thought sufficient by all men to expound words of Scripture by tropes and allegories The heresie of the Authropomorphites and the Euchitae and the doctrine of the Chiliasts and Origen gelding himself proceeded from the literal sence of some texts of Scripture against which there is not the hundred part of so much presumption as I shall in the sequel make to appear to lie against this And yet no man puts out his right eye literally or cuts off his right hand to prevent a scandal Certain it is there hath been much greater inconvenience by following the letter of these words of institution than of any other in Scripture by so much as the danger of Idolatry and actual tyranny and uncharitable damning others and schism are worse than any temporal inconvenience or an error in a matter of speculation 10. Seventhly I argue out of S. Austins grounds thus As the Fathers did eat Christs body so do we under a diverse Sacrament and different symbols but in all the same reality whatsoever we eat the same they did eat for the difference is this only they received Christ by faith in him that was to come and we by faith in him that is come already but they had the same real benefit Christ as really as we for they had salvation as well as we But the fathers could not eat Christs flesh in a natural manner for it was not yet assumed and though it were as good an argument against our eating of it naturally that it is gone from us into heaven yet that which I now insist upon is that it was cibus spiritualis which they eat under the Sacrament of Manna therefore we under the Sacrament of bread and wine eating the same meat eat only Christ in a spiritual sence that is our spiritual meat And this is also true in the other Sacraments of the Rock and the Cloud Our Fathers eat of the same spiritual meat and drank of the same spiritual drink that is Christ so he afterwards expounds it Now if they did eat and drink Christ that is were by him in sacrament and to all reality of effect nourished up to life eternal why cannot the same spiritual meat do the same thing for us we receiving it also in sacrament and mystery 2. To which I add that all they that do communicate spiritually do receive all the blessing of the Sacrament which could not be unless the mystery were only sacramental mysterious and spiritual Maldonate speaking of something of this from the authority of S. Austin is of opinion that if S. Austin were now alive in very spite to the Calvinists he would have expounded that of Manna otherwise than he did It seems he lived in a good time when malice and the spirit of contradiction was not so much in fashion in the interpretations of the Scripture 11. Now let it be considered whether all that I have said be not abundantly sufficient to out-weigh their confidence of the literal sence of these sacramental words They find the words spoken they say they are literally to be understood they bring nothing considerable for it there is no Scripture that so expounds it there is no reason in the circumstances of the words but there is all the reason of the world against it as I have and shall shew and such for the meanest of which very many other places of Scripture are drawn from the literal sence and rest in a tropical and spiritual Now in all such cases when we find an inconvenience press the literal expression of a text instantly we find another that is figurative and why it is not so done in this the interest and secular advantages which are consequent to this opinion of the Church of Rome may give sufficient account In the mean time we have reason not to admit of the literal sence of these words not only by the analogy of other sacramental expressions in both Testaments I mean that of Circumcision and the Passeover in the Old and Baptism as Christ discoursed it to Nicodemus in the New Testament but also 2. Because the literal sence of the like words in this very Article introduced the Heresie of the Capernaites and 3. Because the subject and the predicate in the words of institution are diverse and disparate and cannot possibly be spoken of each other properly 4. The words in the natural and proper sence seem to command an unnatural thing the eating of flesh 5. They rush upon infinite impossibilities they contradict sence and reason the principles and discourses of all mankind and of all Philosophy 6. Our blessed Saviour tells us that the flesh profiteth nothing and as themselves pretend even in this mystery that his words were spirit and life 7. The literal sence cannot be explicated by themselves nor by any body for them 8. It is against the Analogy of other Scriptures 9. It is to no purpose 10. Upon the literal sence of the words the Church could not confute the Marcionites Eutychians Nestorians the Aquarii 11. It is against antiquity 12. The whole form of words in every of the members is confessed to be figurative by the opposite party 13. It is not pretended to be verifiable without an infinite company of miracles all which being more than needs and none of them visible but contestations against art and the notices of two or three sciences cannot be supposed to be done by God who does nothing superfluously 14. It seems to contradict an Article of faith viz. of Christs sitting in Heaven in a determinate place and being contained there till his second coming Upon these considerations and upon the account of all the particular arguments which I have and shall bring against it it is not unreasonable neither can it seem so that we decline the letter and adhere to the spirit in the sence of these words But I have divers things more to say in this particular from the consideration of other words of the institution and the whole nature of the thing SECT VII Considerations of the Manner and Circumstances and Annexes of the Institution 1. THE blessed Sacrament is the same thing now as it was in the institution of it But Christ did not really give his natural body in the natural sence when he eat his last Supper therefore neither does he now The first proposition is beyond all dispute certain evident and confessed Hoc facite convinces it This do what Christ did his Disciples are to do I assume Christ did not give his natural body properly in the last Supper therefore neither does he now the assumption I prove by divers arguments 2. First If then he gave
his natural body then it was naturally broken and his bloud was actually poured forth before the passion for he gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his body was delivered broken his bloud was shed Now those words were spoken either properly and naturally and then they were not true because his body was yet whole his bloud still in the proper channels or else it was spoken in a figurative and sacramental sence and so it was true as were all the words which our blessed Saviour spake for that which he then ministred was the Sacrament of his Passion 3. Secondly If Christ gave his body in the natural sence at the last Supper then it was either a sacrifice propitiatory or it was not If it was not then it is not now and then their dream of the Mass is vanished if it was propitiatory at the last Supper then God was reconciled to all the world and mankind was redeemed before the Passion of our blessed Saviour which therefore would have been needless and ineffective so fearful are the consequents of this strange doctrine 4. Thirdly If Christ gave his body properly in the last Supper and not only figuratively and in sacrament then it could not be a representment or sacrament of his Passion but a real exhibition of it but that it was a Sacrament only appears by considering that it was then alive that the Passion was future that the thing was really to be performed upon the Cross that then he was to be delivered for the life of the world In the last Supper all this was in type and sacrament because it was before and the substance was to follow after 5. Fourthly If the natural body of Christ was in the last Supper under the accidents of bread then his body at the same time was visible and invisible in the whole substance visible in his person invisible under the accidents of bread and then it would be inquired what it was which the Apostles received what benefits they could have by receiving the body naturally or whether it be imaginable that the Apostles understoood it in the literal sence when they saw his body stand by unbroken alive integral hypostatical 6. Fifthly If Christs body were naturally in the Sacrament I demand whether it be as it was in the last Supper or as upon the Cross or as it is now in Heaven Not as in the last Supper for then it was frangible but not broken but typically by design in figure and in Sacrament as it is evident in matter of fact 2. Not as on the Cross for there the body was frangible and broken too and the blood spilled and if it were so now in the Sacrament besides that it were to make Christs glorified body passible and to crucifie the Lord of life again it also were not the same body which Christ hath now for his Body that he hath now is spiritual and incorruptible and cannot be otherwise much less can it be so and not so at the same time properly and yet be the same body 3. Not as in Heaven where it is neither corruptible nor broken for then in the Sacrament there were given to us Christs glorified body and then neither were the Sacrament a remembrance of Christs death neither were the words of Institution verified This is my body which is broken besides in this we have Bellarmines confession Neque enim ore corporali sumi potest corpus Christi ut est in coelo But then if it be remembred that Christ hath no other body but that which is in Heaven and that can never be otherwise than it is and so it cannot be received otherwise properly it unanswerably follows that if it be received in any other manner as it must if it be at all it must be received not naturally or corporally but spiritually and indeed By a figure or a sacramental spiritual sence all these difficulties are easily assoiled but by the natural never 7. Sixthly At the last Supper they eat the blessed Eucharist but it was not in remembrance of Christs death for it was future then and therefore not then capable of being remembred any more than a man can be said to remember what will be done to morrow it follows from hence that then Christ only instituted a Sacrament or figurative mysterious representment of a thing that in the whole use of it was variable by heri and cras and therefore never to be naturally verified but on the Cross by a proper and natural presence because then it was so and never else at that time it was future and now it is past and in both it is relative to his death therefore it could not be a real exhibition of his body in a natural sence for that as it could not be remembred then so neither broken now that is nothing of it is natural but it is wholly ritual mysterious and sacramental For that this was the sacrament of his death appears in the words of Institution and by the preceptive words Do this in remembrance of me And in the reason subjoyned by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For so often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye shew the Lords death till he come Therefore when Christ said This is my body given or broken on my part taken eaten on yours it can be nothing else but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sacramental image of his death to effect which purpose it could not be necessary or useful to bring his natural body that so the substance should become his own shadow the natural presence be his own Sacrament or rather the image and representment of what he once suffered His body given in the Sacrament is the application and memory of his death and no more that as Christ in Heaven represents his death in the way of intercession so do we by our ministery but as in Heaven it is wholly a representing of his body crucified a rememoration of his crucifixion of his death passion by which he reconciled God and man so it is in the Sacrament after our manner This is my body given for you that is This is the Sacrament of my death in which my body was given for you For as Aquinas said in all sciences words signifie things but it is proper to Theology that things themselves signified or expressed by voices should also signifie something beyond it This is my body are the sacramental words or those words by which the mystery or the thing is sacramental it must therefore signifie something beyond these words and so they do for they signifie the death which Christ suffered in that body It is but an imperfect conception of the mystery to say it is the Sacrament of Christs body only or his blood but it is ex parte rei a Sacrament of the death of his body and to us a participation or an exhibition of it as it became beneficial to us that
does not mean they receive him not at all Just as we say when a man eats but a little he does not eat for as good never a jot as never the better This I say is not a sufficient escape 1. Because S. Austin opposes sacramental receiving to the true and real and says that the wicked only receive it sacramentally but not the thing whose Sacrament it is so that this is not a proposition of degrees but there is a plain opposition of one to the other 2. It is true S. Austin does not say that the wicked do not receive Christ at all for he says they receive him sacramentally but he says they do not at all receive him truly and the wicked man cannot say he does and he proves this by unanswerable arguments out of Scripture 3. This excuse will not with any pretence be fitted with the sayings of the other Fathers nor to all the words of S. Austin in this quotation and much less in others which I have and shall remark particularly this that he calls that which the wicked eat nothing but signum corporis sanguinis His words are these Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus procul dubio non manducat spiritualiter carnem non bibit sanguinem licèt carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus signum corporis sanguinis he does not eat the body and drink the blood spiritually although carnally and visibly he presses with his teeth the sign of the body and blood Plainly all the wicked do but eat the sign of Christs body all that is to be done beyond is to eat it spiritually There is no other eating but these two and from S. Austin it was that the Schools received that famous distinction of Panis Dominus and Panis Domini Judas received the bread of the Lord against the Lord But the other Apostles received the bread which was the Lord that is his body But I have already spoken of the matter of this argument in the third Paragraph num 7. which the Reader may please to add to this to make it fuller 10. Ninthly Lastly In the words of Institution and Consecration as they call them the words which relate to the consecrated wine are so different in the Evangelists and S. Paul respectively as appears by comparing them together that 1. It does not appear which words were literally spoken by our blessed Saviour for all of them could not be so spoken as they are set down 2. That they all regarded the sence and meaning of the mystery not the letters and the syllables 3. It is not possible to be certain that Christ intended the words of any one of them to be consecratory or effective of what they signifie for every one of the relators differ in the words though all agree in the things as the Reader may observe in the beginning of the fourth Paragraph where the four forms are set by each other to be compared 4. The Church of Rome in the consecration of the Chalice uses a form of words which Christ spake not at all nor are related by S. Matthew or S. Mark or S. Luke or S. Paul but she puts in some things and changes others her form is this Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi aeterni Testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum For this is the chalice of my blood of the New and eternal Testament the mystery of faith which shall be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins what is added is plain what is altered would be very material if the words were consecratory for they are not so likely to be operative and effective as the words of Christ recited by S. Matthew and S. Mark this is my blood and if this had not been the ancient form used in the Church of Rome long before the doctrine of Transubstantiation was thought of it is not to be imagined that they would have refused the plainer words of Scripture to have made the Article more secret the form less operative the authority less warrantable the words less simple and natural But the corollary which is natural and proper from the particulars of this argument is that the mystery was so wholly spiritual that it was no matter by what words it were expressed so the spirit of it were retained and yet if it had been an historical natural proper sence that had been intended it ought also in all reason to have been declared or much more effected by a natural and proper and constant affirmative But that there is nothing spoken properly is therefore evident because there are so many predications and all mean the same mystery Hic est sanguis meus N. Testamenti and Hic calix est N. Testamentum in meo sanguine and Hic est calix sanguinis mei in the Roman Missal all this declares it is mysterium fidei and so to be taken in all sences and those words are left in their Canon as if on purpose either to prevent the literal and natural understanding of the other words or for the reducing the communicants to the only apprehensions of faith It is mysterium fidei not sanguis naturalis a mystery of faith not natural blood For supposing that both the forms used by S. Matthew and S. Luke respectively could be proper and without a figure and S. Matthews Hic est sanguis Testamenti did signifie This is the divine promise for so Bellarmine dreams that Testament there signifies and that in S. Lukes words This cup is the Testament it signifies the instrument of the Testament for so a Will or a Testament is taken either for the thing willed or the Parchment in which it is written yet how are these or either of these affirmative of the wine being transubstantiated into blood It says nothing of that and so if this sence of those words does avoid a trope it brings in a distinct proposition if it be spoken properly it is more distant from giving authority to their new doctrine and if the same word have several sences then in the sacramental proposition as it is described by the several Evangelists there are several predicates and therefore it is impossible that all should be proper And yet besides this although he thinks he may freely say any thing if he covers it with a distinction yet the very members of this distinction conclude against his conclusion for if Testament in one place be taken for the instrument of his Testament it is a tropical loquution just as I say my bible meaning my book is the word of God that is contains the word of God it is a Metonymie of the thing containing for that which it contains But this was more than I needed and therefore I am content it should pass for nothing SECT VIII Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture 1.
THUS I have by very many arguments taken from the words and circumstances and annexes of the Institution or Consecration proved that the sence of this mystery is mysterious and spiritual that Christs body is eaten only sacramentally by the body but really and effectively only by faith which is the mouth of the soul that the flesh profiteth nothing but the words which Christ spake are spirit and life And let it be considered Whether besides a pertinacious resolution that they will understand these words as they found in the letter not as they are intended in the spirit there be any thing or indeed can be in the nature of the thing or circumstances of it or usefulness or in the different forms of words or the Analogy of the other discourses of Christ that can give colour to their literal sence against which so much reason and Scripture and arguments from Antiquity do contest This only I observe that they bring no pretence of other Scriptures to warrant this interpretation but such which I have or shall wrest out of their hands and which to all mens first apprehensions and at the very first sight do make against them and which without curious notion and devices cannot pretend on their side as appears first in the tenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians Verses 16 17. 2. Out of which I have already proved that Christs body is not taken in the natural sence but in the spiritual But when Bellarmine had out of the same words forced for himself three arguments proving nothing to save any man the labour of answering them he adds at the end of them these words Sed tota difficultas est as corporaliter realiter propriè sumatur sanguis caro an solùm significativè spiritualiter Quod autem corporaliter propriè probari posset omnibus argumentis quibus suprà probavimus propriè esse intelligenda verba illa institutionis Hoc est corpus meum That is after his arguments out of the first Epistle to the Corinthians were ended all the difficulty of the question still remained and that he was fain to prove by Hoc est corpus meum and the proper arguments of that but brings nothing from the words of S. Paul in this Chapter But to make up this also he does corrodere scrape together some things extrinsecal to the words of this authority as 1. That the literal sence is to be presumed unless the contrary be proved which is very true but I have evidently proved the contrary concerning the words of Institution and for the words in this Chapter if the literal sence be preferred then the bread remains after Consecration because it is called bread 2. So the Primitive Saints expounded it which how true it is I shall consider in his own place 3. The Apostle calling the Gentiles from their sacrificed flesh proposes to them a more excellent banquet but it were not more excellent if it were only a figure of Christs body so Bellarmine which is a fit cover for such a dish for 1. We do not say that in the Sacrament we only receive the sign and figure of Christs body but all the real effects and benefits of it 2. If we had yet it is not very much better than blasphemy to say that the Apostles had not prevailed upon that account For if the very figure and sacrament of Christs body be better than sacrifices offered to Devils the Apostle had prevailed though this sentence were true that in the Sacrament we receive only the figure And thus I have for all that is said against it made it apparent that there is nothing in that place for their corporal presence 3. There is one thing more which out of Scripture they urge for the corporal presence viz. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body and he shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Where they observe that they that eat unworthily do yet eat Christs body because how else could they be guilty of it and condemned for not discerning it 4. To this I answer many things 1. S. Paul does not say He that eateth and drinketh Christs body and blood unworthily c. but indefinitely He that eateth and drinketh c. yet it is probable he would have said so if it had been a proper form of speech because by so doing it would have layed a greater load upon them 2. Where S. Paul does not speak indefinitely he speaks most clearly against the Article in the Roman sence for he calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The cup of the Lord and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this bread and he that eats this bread unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of Christ and now these comminatory phrases are quitted from their pretence but yet they have their proper consideration Therefore 3. Not discerning the Lords body is not separating it from profane and common usages not treating it with addresses proper to the mystery To which phrase Justin gives light in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we do not receive it as common bread and common drink but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but nourishment made Eucharistical or blessed by the word of Prayer and so it is the body and blood of the Lord. 4. It is the body of the Lord in the same sence here as in the words of institution which I have evinced to be exegetical sacramental and spiritual and by despising the sacrament of it we become guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Reus erit corporis sanguinis Christi qui tanti mysterii sacramentum despexerit saith S. Hierome And it is in this as Severianus said concerning the statutes of Theodosius broken in despight by the Antiochians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you abuse the Kings Image the affront relates to your Prince 5. The unworthy receiver is guilty of the body and blood of Christ not naturally for that cannot now be and nothing is a greater probation of the spiritual sence of the words in this place than this which they would intice into their party For Christs body is glorified and not capable of natural injury but the evil communicant is guilty of the body and blood of Christ just as relapsing Christians are said by the same Apostles to crucifie the Lord of life again and put him to an open shame which I suppose they cannot do naturally or corporally One is as the other that is both are tropical or figurative 5. These are all that they pretend from Scripture and all these are nothing to their purpose but now besides what I have already said I shall bring arguments from other Scriptures which will not so easily be put off SECT IX Arguments from other Scriptures proving Christs Real Presence in the Sacrament to be only Spiritual not Natural 1. THE first is taken from those words of our
own Turrecremata It remains that it must be repletivè in many places which we use to attribute to God only and it is that manner of being in a place by which God is distinguished from his creatures But now a fourth word must be invented and that is Sacramentalitèr Christs body is Sacramentally in more places than one which is very true that is the Sacrament of Christs body is and so is his body figuratively tropically representatively in being and really in effect and blessing But this is not a natural real being in a place but a relation to a person the other three are all the manners of location which the soul of Man could yet ever apprehend 18. Fifthly It is essential to a body to have partem extra partem one part without the other answering to the parts of his place for so the eyes stand separate from the hands and the ears from the feet and the head from the belly But in Transubstantiation the whole body is in a point in a minimum naturale in the least imaginable crumb of consecrated bread how then shall nose and eyes and head and hands be distinct unless the mutiny of the members be reconciled and all parties pleased because the feet shall be the eyes and the leg shall be the head and possess each others dimension and proper cells of dwelling Quod ego non credo said an ancient Gloss. I will not insist upon the unworthy questions which this carnal doctrine introduces viz. Whether Christs whole body be so there that the prepuce is not wanting Suarez supposing that as probable others denying it but disputing it fiercely Neither will I make scrutiny concerning eating Christs bones guts hair and nails nor suppose the Roman Priests to be such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to have such saws in their mouths these are appendages of their perswasion but to be abominated by all Christian and modest persons who use to eat not the bodies but the flesh of beasts and not to devour but to worship the body of Christ in the exaltation and more in the union with his Divinity But that which I now insist upon is that in a body there cannot be indistinction of parts but each must possess his own portion of place and if it does not a body cannot be a body nor distinguished from a Spirit 19. Sixthly When a body broken into half one half is separate from another and remains divided But in the doctrine of Transubstantiation the wafer which they say is Christs whole body if it be broken is broken into two whole ones not into the halfs of one and so there shall be two bodies if each half make one and yet those two bodies are but one and not two Adde to this if each wafer be Christ's body whole and the fraction of it makes that every part is whole Christ then every communicant can consecrate as well as the Priest for at his breaking the host in his mouth why the body should not also become whole to each part in the mouth as well as to each part in the hand is one of the unintelligible secrets of this mystery 20. Aquinas says that The body of Christ is not in the Sacrament in the manner of a body but of a substance and so is whole in the whole Well suppose that for a while yet 1. Those substances which are whole in the whole are by his own doctrine neither divisible nor multiplicable and how then can Christs body be supposed to be multiplicable for there are no other words to express my meaning though no words can speak sence according to their doctrine words not signifying here as every where else and among them as they did always in all mankind how can it I say be multiplied by the breaking of the wafer or bread upon the account of the likeness of it to a substance that cannot be broken or if it could yet were not multipliable But 2. If Christs body be there according to the manner of a substance not of a body I demand according to the nature of what substance whether of a material or an immaterial If according to the nature of a material substance then it is commensurate by the dimensions of quantity which he is now endeavouring to avoid If according to the nature of an immaterial substance then it is not a body but a Spirit or else the body may have the being of a Spirit whilest it remains a body that is be a body and not a body at the same time But 3. To say that a body is there not according to the nature of a body but of a substance is not sence for besides that by this answer it is a body without the nature of a body it says that it is also there determin'd by a manner and yet that manner is so far from determining it that it makes it yet more undetermin'd and general than it was For Substance is the highest Genus in that Category and corpus or body is under it and made more special by a superadded difference To say therefore that a body is there after the manner of a substance is to say that by being specificated limited and determin'd it becomes not a Species but a Genus that is more unlimited by limitations more generical by his specification more universal by being made more particular For impossible is it for wise men to make sence of this business 3. But besides all this to be in a place after the manner of a substance is not to be in a place at all for substantia hath in it no relation to a place till it be specificated to a Body or a Spirit For substantia dicit solùm formalitatem substandi accidentibus subsistendi per se but the capacity of or relation to a place is by the specification of it by some substantial difference 4. Lastly to explicate the being in a place in the manner of a substance by being whole in the whole and whole in every part is to say that every substance is so which is notoriously false for corporal substances are not so whether spiritual be is a question not proper for this place 21. Aquinas hath yet another device to make all whole saying that one body cannot be in diverse places localitèr but Sacramentalitèr not locally but Sacramentally But first I wish the words were sence and that I could tell the meaning of being in a place locally and not locally unless a thing can be in a place and not in a place that is so to be in that it is also out But so long as it is a distinction it is no matter it will amuse and make way to escape if it will do nothing else But if by being Sacramentally in many places is meant figuratively as before I explicated it then I grant Aquinas's affirmative Christs body is in many places Sacramentally that is it is represented upon all the holy Tables or
but therefore this is bread still here the Consequence is good and is so still when the subject of the proposition is something real and not in appearance only Because whatsoever is but in appearance and pretence is a Non-Ens in respect of that real thing which it counterfeits And therefore it follows not This is not a common dove therefore it is a Dove because if this be model'd into a right proposition nihil supponit there is no subject in it for it cannot in this case be said This Dove is no common Dove but this which is like a Dove is not a common Dove and these persons which look like men are not common men And the rule for this and the reason too is Non entis nulla sunt praedicata To which also this may be added that in the proposition as C. Perron expresses it the negation is not the Adjective but the substantive part of the predicate It is no common Dove where the negative term relates to the Dove not to common It is no Dove and the words not common are also equivocal and as it can signifie extraordinary so it can signifie Natural But if the subject of the proposition be something real then the consequent is good as if you bring a Pigeon from Japan all red you may say This is no common Pigeon and your argument is still good therefore it is a Pigeon So if you take sugred bread or bread made of Indian wheat you saying this is no common bread do mean it is extraordinary or unusual but it is bread still and so if it be said this bread is Eucharistical it will follow rightly therefore this is bread For in this case the predicate is only an infinite or Negative term but the subject is suppos'd and affirm'd And this is also more apparent if the proposition be affirmative and the terms be not infinite as it is in the present case This bread is Eucharistical I have now I suppose clear'd the words of Justin M. and expounded them to his own sence and the truth but his sence will further appear in other words which I principally rely upon in this quotation For speaking that of the Prophet Isai. Panis dabitur ei aqua ejus fidelis he hath these words It appears sufficiently That in this prophecie he speaks of bread which our Lord Christ hath deliver'd to us to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a memorial that he is made a body for them that believe in him for whose sake he was made passible and of the Cup which for the recordation of his blood he delivered to them to do that is give thanks or celebrate the Eucharist These are the words of Justin Where 1. According to the first simplicity of the primitive Church he treats of this mystery according to the style of the evangelists and S. Paul and indeed of our Blessed Lord himself commanding all this whole mystery to be done in memory of him 2. If S. Justin had meant any thing of the new fabrick of this mystery he must have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bread made his body though this also would not have done their work for them but when he says he gave the bread only for the remembrance of his being made a body the bread must needs be the sign figure and representation of that body 3. Still he calls it bread even then when Christ gave it still it is wine when the Eucharist is made when the faithful have given thanks and if it be bread still we also grant it to be Christs body and then there is a figure and the things figured the one visible and the other invisible and this is it which I affirmed to be the sence of Justin Martyr And it is more perfectly explicated by Saint Greg. Naz. calling the Pascal Lamb a figure of a figure of which I shall yet give an account in this Section But to make this yet more clear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We do not receive these as common bread or common drink but as by the word of God Jesus Christ our Lord was made flesh and for our salvation had flesh and blood so are we taught that that very nourishment on which by the prayers of his word thanks are given by which our flesh and blood are nourished by change is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus Here S. Justin compares the consecration of the Eucharist by prayer to the incarnation of Christ the thing with the thing to shew it is not common bread but bread made Christs body he compares not the manner of one with the manner of the other as Cardinal Perron would fain have it believed for if it were so it would not only destroy an Article of Christian faith but even of the Roman too for if the changes were in the same manner then either the man is Transubstantiated into God or else the bread is not Transubstantiated into Christs body but the first cannot be because it would destroy the hypostatical Union and make Christ to be one nature as well as one person but for the latter part of the Dilemma viz. that the bread is not Transubstantiated whether it be true or false it cannot be affirmed from hence and therefore the Cardinal labours to no purpose and without consideration of what may follow But now these words make very much against the Roman hypothesis and directly prove the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the consecrated bread that is after it is consecrated to be natural nourishment of the body and therefore to be Christs body only spiritually and Sacramentally unless it can be two substances at the same time Christs body and bread in the Natural sence which the Church of Rome at this day will not allow and if it were allowed it would follow that Christ body should be Transubstantiated into our body and suffer the very worst changes which in our eating and digestion and separation happen to common bread This argument relies upon the concurrent Testimony of many of the ancient Fathers besides Justin Martyr especially S. Irenaeus and certainly destroys the whole Roman Article of Transubstantiation for if the Eucharistical bread nourishes the body then it is still the substance of bread for accidents do not nourish and quantity or quality is not the subject or term of Nutrition but reparation of substance by a substantial change of one into another But of this enough Eusebius is next alledged in the Dissuasive but his words though pregnant and full of proof against the Roman hypothesis are by all the Contra-scribers let alone only one of them says that the place of the quotation is not rightly mark'd for the first three chapters are not extant well but the words are and the last chapter is which is there quoted and to the 10. chapter the Printer should have more carefully attended and not omit the Cypher which I suppose he would
die with hunger and thy house is full of good things and nothing goes forth to them from thence If therefore thou wilt be perfect sell all and give to the poor Charity which is the fulfilling the Commandment is also the perfection of a Christian and that a giving of alms should be perfection is not disagreeing with the design of the word it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say the Grammarians it signifies to spend and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a great spender or a bountiful person III. The third is the very particular to which our blessed Master did especially relate in the words of the sanction or institution and we are taught it by the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or therefore For when the holy Jesus had describ'd that glory of Christianity that we should love our enemies bless them that curse us do good to them that hate us and pray for them which despitefully use us and persecute us he propounds the example of our heavenly Father for he maketh his Sun to rise on the evil and on the good But the Publicans love their friends and salute their brethren but more is expected of us Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect that is do more than the Publicans do as your Father does be perfect as he is that is love your enemies 46. VI. Now concerning this sence of the Precept of perfection which is the choice and pursuance of the noblest actions of Religion we must observe that they are therefore perfection because they suppose a man to have pass'd through the first and beginning graces to have arrived at these excellencies of piety and duty For as no man can on a sudden become the worst man in the world his soul must by degrees be unstript of holiness and then of modesty and then of all care of reputation and then of disuse and by these measures he will proceed to the consummation of the method of Hell and darkness So can no man on a sudden come to the right use of these graces Not every man that dies in a good cause shall have the reward of Martyrdome but he that having liv'd well seals that doctrine with dying which before he adorn'd with living And therefore it does infinitely concern all them that suffer in a good Cause to take care that they be not prodigal of their sufferings and throw them away upon vice Peevishness or pride lust or intemperance can never be consecrated by dying or by alms But he that after a patient continuance in well doing adds Charity or Martyrdome to the collective body of his other graces he hath made them perfect with this kind of perfection Martyrdome can supply the place of actual baptisms but not of repentance Because without our fault it may so happen that the first cannot be had but without our fault the second is never left undone 47. Thus perfection and repentance may stand together Perfection does not suppose the highest intention of degrees in every one but in all according to their measures of grace and time Evangelical perfection is such as supposes a beginning an infant grace progression and variety watchfulness and fear trembling fear And there are many graces required of us whose material and formal part is Repentance Such as are Mortification Penitential sorrow Spiritual mourning Patience some parts of Humility all the parts and actions of Humiliation and since in these also perfection is as great a duty as in any thing else it is certain that the perfection of a Christian is not the supreme degree of action or intention 48. But yet perfection cannot be less than an intire piety a holiness perfect in its parts wanting nothing material allowing no vicious habit permitting no vile action but contending towards the greatest excellency a charitable heart a ready hand a confident Religion willing to die when we are called to die patient constant and persevering endeavouring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the measures of a man to be pure and pleasing to God in Jesus Christ. This is the summ of all those several sences of perfection which are prescrib'd in the several uses of the word in holy Scripture For though God through Jesus Christ is pleased to abate for our unavoidable infirmities that is for our Nature yet he will not abate or give allowance to our superinduc'd evil customes and the reason is plain for both because the one can be helped and the other cannot and therefore as to allow that is to be a patron of impiety so not to allow for this is to demand what cannot be done that is against the holiness this against the goodness of God 49. There is not a man upon earth that sinneth not said Solomon and the righteous shall be punished said David and he found it so by a sad experience for he though affirmed to be blameless save in the matter of Vriah and a man after Gods own heart yet complains that his sins are innumerable more than the hairs upon his head But though no man can live without errour or mistake the effects of weakness and ignorance inadvertency and surprise yet being helped by Gods grace we can and must live without great sins such which no man admits but with deliberation 50. For it is one thing to keep the Commandments in a sence of favour and equity and another thing to be without sin To keep the Commandments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or exactly is to be without sin because the Commandment forbids every sin and sin is a transgression of the Commandment But as in this sence no man can keep the Commandments so in no sence can he say that he hath not sinned But we can by the help of Gods grace keep the Commandments acceptably through Jesus Christ but we cannot keep them so as to be without sin Which S. Gregory thus expresses Multi sine crimine nullus verò esse sine peccatis valet Many live without crimes none without offence And it is now as it was under the law many were then righteous and blameless David Josiah Joshua Caleb Zachary and Elizabeth Saul before his conversion according to the accounts of the Law and so are many now according to the holy and merciful measures of the Gospel not by the force of Nature but by the helps of Grace not always but at some time not absolutely but in a limited measure that is not innocent but penitent not perfect absolutely but excellently contending and perfect in their desires not at their journeys end but on their way thither free from great sins but speckled with lesser spots ever striving against sin though sometimes failing This is the Precept of perfection as it can consist with the measures and infirmities of a man 51. We must turn from all our evil ways leaving no sin unmortified that 's one measure of perfection it is a perfect conversion * We must have Charity that 's another perfection it is
suckers and excrescencies which therefore by way of eminency they call Penances for they suppose the word in its very nature and institution to signifie something that is punitive and afflictive So Hugo Poenitentia quasi punientia quòd per eam homo in se puniat quod malè admisit Much like that of Scotus poenitentia quasi poenae tenentia which they both learned from S. Austin poenitere est idem quod rei commissae aliquem pudere ac pigere it a ut poenitet sit idem quod poena tenet This sence of the word prevailed long and therefore some that would speak exactly observing that the duty of Repentance did principally consist in the amendment of our lives were forc'd to use the word Resipiscentia which better renders the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Lactantius expresly Graeci meliùs significantiùs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt quam Latinè possumus resipiscentiam dicere Resipiscit enim ac mentem suam quasi ab insaniâ recipit quem errare piget castigátque seipsum dementiae confirmat animum suum ad rectiùs vivendum He truly repents who recovers his mind from folly and chastising his error and grieving for his madness strengthens his purposes to better living 7. Either of the words will serve the turn Poenitentia or Penance is the old Latin word Resipiscentia is the new one but very expressive and significant and it is indifferent which be used if men had not a design upon one which cannot prudently be effected by it But such is the force of words especially when men chuse and affect one particularly and studiously reject another which is apt to signifie the same thing that in the Greek Church because their words for Repentance did imply only or principally a change of life they usually describe Repentance in that formality but the later Latins practise and discourse to other purposes and the Colledge of Rhemes render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word for word after their vulgar Latin agite poenitentiam do penance which is so absurd a reddition that their interest and design is more apparent than their skill in Grammar or their ingenuity It is much very much better which we learn from a wise Heathen who gives such an account both of the words and thing as might not misbecome the best instructed Christian so far as concerns the nature and morality of the duty His words are excellent words and therefore I shall transcribe them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We ought principally to take care that we do not sin but if we be overtaken then to make diligent haste to return to justice or righteousness as the cure of our wickedness that we may amend out evil counsels or wills by the help of a better For when we are fallen from goodness we receive or recover it again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a wise or well principled penitential sorrow admitting a Divine correction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but repentance it self is the beginning of wisdom a flying from foolish words and deeds and the first institution of a life not to be repented of Where besides the definition of repentance and a most perfect description of its nature and intention he with some curiosity differences the two Greek words making 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be but the beginning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sorrow the beginning of repentance and both together the reformation of the old and the institution of a new life 8. But to quit the words from being the subject matter of a Quarrel it is observable that the Latin word poenitentia does really signifie by use I mean and custom as much as the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is expressive of the whole duty of Repentance and although it implies that sorrow and grief which is the natural in-let of reformation of our lives and the consequent of our shame and sin yet it also does signifie correction and amendment which is the formality and essence of Repentance and therefore Erasmus more warily and in imitation of the old Latins says that poenitere is from pone tenere quod est posterius consilium capere to be wiser the next time to chuse again and chuse better and so A. Gellius defines it Poenitere tum dicere solemus cum quae ipsi fecimus aut quae de nostrâ voluntate nostróque consilio facta sunt ea nobis pòst incipiunt displicere sententiámque in iis nostram demutamus To repent is when those things which we have done displease us and we change our minds So that here is both a Displeasure and a Change a displeasure and sorrow for the evil and a change to better And there ought to be no scruple in this for by the first sorrow of a penitent man is meant nothing else but the first act of eschewing evil which whether it be by grief alone or by fear or by hope or by all these it is not without some trouble of mind and displeasure for if it were still in all sences a pleasure to go on they would never return back And therefore to suppose repentance without displeasure is to suppose a change of mind without alteration or a taking a new course without disliking the old But then to suppose any other sorrow naturally necessary than this which naturally is included in the change is to affirm that to be true which experience tells us is not true and it is to place self-affliction and punition at the head which is to be look'd for in the retinue of repentance to make the daughter to be before the Mother and the fruit to be kept in the root not to grow upon the branches But the Latin words can no way determine any thing of Question in this article and the Greek words are used promiscuously and when they are distinguished they differ but as the more and less perfect as the beginning of Repentance and the progress of perfection according to that saying Poenitentiae erroris magnus gradus est ad resipiscentiam To acknowledge and be sorry for our sin is a great step to repentance and both together signifie all that piety that change and holiness which is the duty of the new man of the Returning sinner and we can best learn it by the words of him that revealed and gave this grace to all his servants even of the Holy Jesus speaking to S. Paul at his Conversion from whose blessed words together with those of S. Paul in his narrative of that story we may draw this more perfect description To repent is to turn from darkness to light from the power of Satan unto God doing works worthy of amendment of life for the forgiveness of sins that we may receive inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Christ Jesus 9. Upon this account the parts of Repentance are two 1. Leaving our sins which is properly repentance from dead works And 2. Doing holy actions
of God be in it Add then but these Our love to God does not consist in an act of intuition or contemplation nor yet directly and meerly of passion but it consists in obedience If ye love me keep my Commandments That 's our love of God So that Contrition is a detestation of our past sin and a consequent obedience to the Divine Commandments Only as the aversion hath been so must be the conversion It was not one act of disobedience only which the habitual sinner is to be contrite for but many and therefore so must his contrition be a lasting hatred against sin and an habitual love that is an habitual obedience to the Divine Commandment 63. VI. But now to the instances of David and the Prodigal and the sudden pronunciation of their pardon there is something particular to be said The Parable of the Prodigal can prove nothing but Gods readiness to receive every returning sinner but neither the measures nor the times of pardon are there described As for David his pardon was pronounced suddenly but it was but a piece of pardon the sentence of death which by Moses's law he incurred that only was remitted but after this pardon David repented bitterly in sackcloth and ashes he fasted and prayed he liv'd holily and wisely he made amends as he could and yet the child died that was born to him his Son and Subjects rebelled his Concubines were dishonoured in the face of the Sun and the Sword never departed from his house 2. But to both these and all other instances that are or can be of the like nature I answer That there is no doubt but Gods pardon is as early and speedy as the beginnings of our repentance but then it is such a pardon as is proportionable to the Repentance a beginning Pardon to a beginning Repentance It is one degree of pardon to be admitted to Repentance To have more grace given to have hopes of final absolution to be continued in the work of the Lord to be help'd in the mortification of our sins to be invited forwards and comforted and defended and blessed still are further progressions of it and answer to the several parts and perseverance of Repentance And in this sence those sayings of the old Doctors are true but in no other that I know of To this purpose they are excellent words which were spoken by S. Austin Nunquam Deus spernit poenitentiam si ei sincerè simplicitèr offeratur suscipit libentèr accipit amplectitur omnia quatenus eum ad priorem statum revocet God never does despise repentance that is sincerely offered to him he takes all he embraces all that he may bring the man to his former state 64. Obj. 5. But against this doctrine are pretended some sentences of the Fathers expresly affirming that a sinner returning to God in any instant may be pardoned even in the last moment of his life when it is certain nothing can be done but single acts of contrition or something like it Thus the Author of the book De coena Domini attributed to S. Cyprian Sed in eodem articulo temporis cum jam anima festinat ad exitum egrediens ad labia expirantis emerserit poenitentiam clementissimi Dei benignitas non aspernatur nec serum est quod verum nec irremissibile quod voluntarium quae cunque necessitas cogat ad poenitudinem nec quantitas criminis nec brevitas temporis nec horae extremitas nec vitae enormitas si vera contritio si pura fuerit voluptatum mutatio excludit à veniâ sed in amplitudine sinus sui mater charitas prodigos suscipit revertentes velit nolit Novatus haereticus omni tempore Dei gratia recipit poenitentes Truly this is expresly against the severity of the former doctrine and if S. Cyprian had been the Author of this book I should have confess'd him to be an adversary in this question For this Author affirms that then when the soul is expiring God rejects not the contrition of him who but then returns Though the man be compelled to repentance though the time be short and the iniquity was long and great yet in the last hour if he be truly contrite God will not refuse him To this I say that he that said these words was one that liv'd not very long since then when Discipline was broken and Piety was lost and Charity was waxen cold and since the mans authority is nothing I need say no more but that I have been reproving this opinion all this while But there are words in S. Cyprian's book to Demetrianus which are confessedly his and yet seem to promise pardon to dying penitents Nec quisquam aut peccatis retardetur aut annis quo minus veniat ad consequendam salutem In isto adhuc mundo manenti poenitentia nulla sera est Patet ad indulgentiam Dei aditus quaerentibus atque intelligentibus veritatem facilis accessus est Tu sub ipso licet exitu vitae temporalis occasu pro delictis roges Deum qui unus verus est confessione fide agnitionis ejus implores Venia confitenti datur credenti indulgentia salutaris de Divinâ pietate conceditur ad immortalitatem sub ipsâ morte transitur These words are indeed very expresly affirmative of the efficacy of a very late even of a Death-bed repentance if it should so happen But the consideration of the person wholly alters the case and makes it unapplicable to the case of dying Christians For Demetrianus was then a Pagan and a cruel Persecutor of Christians Nec saltem contentus es dolorum nostrorum compendio simplici ac veloci brevitate poenarum admoves laniandis corporibus longa tormenta Innoxios justos Deo charos domo privas patrimonio spolias catenis premis carcere includis bestiis gladio ignibus punis This man S. Cyprian according to the Christian Charity which teaches to pray for our Persecutors and to love our Enemies exhorts passionately to believe in Christ to become a Christian and though he was very old yet to repent even then would not be too late Hujus Sacramento signo censeamur Hunc si fieri potest sequamur omnes Let us all follow Christ let us all be consign'd with his sign and his Sacrament Now there is no peradventure but new converted persons Heathens newly giving up their Names to Christ and being baptized if they die in an hour and were baptized half an hour after they believe in Christ are heirs of Salvation And it was impossible to be otherwise for when the Heathen world was to be converted and the Gospel preached to all persons old men and dying men it must either be effective to them also of all the Promises or by nothing could they be called to the Religion They who were not Christians were not to be judged by the Laws of Christ. But yet Christians are and
and ordinarily and the evil which I hate I do avoid sometimes indeed I am surpris'd and when I do neglect to use the aids and strengths of the spirit of grace I fall but this is because I will not and not because I cannot help it and in this case the man is not a servant or captive of sin but a servant of Christ though weak and imperfect But if it means I do it commonly or constantly or frequently which is certainly the complaint here made then to be a regenerate person is to be a vile person sold under sin and not Gods servant For if any man shall suppose these words to mean only thus I do not do so much good as I would and do sometimes fall into evil though I would fain be intirely innocent indeed this man teaches no false doctrine as to the state or duty of the regenerate which in this life will for ever be imperfect but he speaks not according to the sence and design of the Apostle here For his purpose is to describe that state of evil in which we are by nature and from which we could not be recovered by the law and from which we can only be redeemed by the grace of Jesus Christ and this is a state of death of being killed by sin of being captivated and sold under sin after the manner of slaves as will further appear in the sequel 12. III. Every regenerate man and servant of Christ hath the Spirit of Christ. But where the Spirit of God is there is liberty therefore no slavery therefore sin reigns not there Both the propositions are the words of the Apostle The conclusion therefore infers that the man whom S. Paul describes in this Chapter is not the regenerate man for he hath not liberty but is in captivity to the law of sin from which every one that is Christs every one that hath the Spirit of Christ is freed 13. IV. And this is that which S. Paul calls being under the law that is a being carnal and in the state of the flesh not but that the law it self is spiritual but that we being carnal of our selves are not cured by the law but by reason of the infirmity of the flesh made much worse curbed but not sweetly won admonished but assisted by no spirit but the spirit of bondage and fear This state is opposed to the spiritual state The giving of the law is called the ministery of death the Gospel is called the ministery of the Spirit and that is the ministration of life and therefore if we be led by the Spirit we are not under the law but if we be under the law we are dead and sin is revived and sin by the law brings forth fruit unto death From hence the argument of the Apostle is clear The man whom he here describes is such a one who is under the law but such a man is dead by reason of sin and therefore hath not in him the Spirit of God for that is the ministration of life A regenerate person is alive unto God he lives the life of righteousness but he that is under the law is killed by sin and such is the man that is here described as appears verse 9. and I shall in the sequel further prove therefore this man is not the regenerate 14. V. To which for the likeness of the argument I add this That the man who can say I do that which I hate is a man in whom sin is not mortified and therefore he lives after the flesh but then he is not regenerate for if ye live after the flesh ye shall die saith S. Paul but if ye through the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the body ye shall live These arguments are taken from consideration of the rule and dominion of sin in the man whom S. Paul describes who therefore cannot be a regenerate person To the same effect and conclusion are other expressions in the same Chapter 15. VI. The man whom S. Paul here describes who complains That he does not the good which he would but the evil that he would not is such a one in whom sin does inhabit It is no more I but sin that dwelleth in me But in the regenerate sin does not inhabit My Father and I will come unto him and make our abode with him So Christ promised to his servants to them who should be regenerate and the Spirit of God dwelleth in them the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from the dead and therefore the Regenerate are called the habitation of God through the Spirit Now if God the Father if Christ if the Spirit of Christ dwells in a man there sin does not dwell The strong man that is armed keeps possession but if a stronger than he comes he dispossesses him If the Spirit of God does not drive the Devil forth himself will leave the place They cannot both dwell together Sin may be in the regenerate and grieve Gods Spirit but it shall not abide or dwell there for that extinguishes him One or the other must depart And this also is noted by S. Paul in this very place sin dwelleth in me and no good thing dwelleth in me If one does the other does not but yet as in the unregenerate there might be some good such as are good desires knowledge of good and evil single actions of vertue beginnings and dispositions to grace acknowledging of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ some lightnings and flashes of the holy Ghost a knowing of the way of righteousness but sanctifying saving good does not dwell that is does not abide with them and rule so in the regenerate there is sin but because it does not dwell there they are under the Empire of the Spirit and in Christs Kingdom or as S. Paul expresses it Christ liveth in them and that cannot be unless sin be crucified and dead in them The summ of which is thus in S. Paul's words Reckon your selves indeed to be dead unto sin but alive unto God through Jesus Christ. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof For sin shall not have dominion over you because we are not under the law but under grace 16. VII Lastly the man whom S. Paul describes is carnal but the regenerate is never called carnal in the Scripture but is spiritual oppos'd to carnal A man not only in pure naturals but even plac'd under the law is called carnal that is until he be redeemed by the Spirit of Christ he cannot be called spiritual but is yet in the flesh Now that the regenerate cannot be the carnal man is plain in the words of S. Paul The carnal mind is enmity against God and they that are in the flesh cannot please God To which he adds But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you
at a solemnity of joy so are all the sad accents and circumstances and effects and instruments of sorrow proper in a day of mourning All Nations weep not in the same manner and have not the same interjections of sorrow but as every one of us use to mourn in our greatest losses and in the death of our dearest relatives so it is fit we should mourn in the dangers and death of our souls that they may being refreshed by such salutary and medicinal showers spring up to life eternal 77. In the several Ages of the Church they had several methods of these satisfactions and they requiring a longer proof of their repentance than we usually do did also by consequent injoyn and expect greater and longer penitential severities Concerning which these two things are certain 78. The one is that they did not believe them simply necessary to the procuring of pardon from God which appears in this that they did absolve persons in the Article of death though they had not done their satisfactions They would absolve none that did not express his repentance some way or other but they did absolve them that could do no exterior penances by which it is plain that they made a separation of that which was useful and profitable only from that which is necessary 79. The other thing which I was to say is this That though these corporal severities were not esteemed by them simply necessary but such which might in any and in every instance be omitted in ordinary cases and commuted for others more fit and useful yet they chose these austerities as the best signification of their repentance towards men such in which there is the greatest likelihood of sincerity a hearty sorrow such which have in them the least objection such in which a man hath the clearest power and the most frequent opportunity such which every man can do which have in them the least inlet to temptation and the least powers to abuse a man and they are such which do not only signifie but effect and promote repentance But yet they are acts of repentance just as beating the breasts or smiting the thigh or sighing or tears or tearing the hair or refusing our meat are acts of sorrow if God should command us to be sorrowful this might be done when it could be done at all though none of these were in the expression and signification The Jews did in all great sorrows or trouble of mind rent their garments As we may be as much troubled as they though we do not tear our clothes so we may be as true penitents as were the holy Primitives though we do not use that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hardship which was then the manner of their penitential solemnities But then the repentance must be exercised by some other acts proper to the grace Prayers 80. Preces undique undecunque lucrum says one Prayers are useful upon all occasions but especially in repentances and afflictive duties or accidents Is any man afflicted let him pray saith S. James and since nothing can deserve pardon all the good works in the world done by Gods enemy cannot reconcile him to God but pardon of sins is as much a gift as eternal life is there is no way more proper to obtain pardon than a devout humble persevering prayer And this also is a part of repentance poenaeque genus vidisse precantem When we confess our sins and when we pray for pardon we concentre many acts of vertue together There is the hatred of sin and the shame for having committed it there is the justification of God and the humiliation of our selves there is confession of sins and hope of pardon there is fear and love sense of our infirmity and confidence of the Divine goodness sorrow for the past and holy purposes and desires and vows of living better in time to come Unless all this be in it the prayers are not worthy fruits of a holy repentance But such prayers are a part of amends it is a satisfaction to God in the true and modest sence of the word So S. Cyprian affirms speaking of the three children in the fiery Furnace Domino satisfacere nec inter ipsa gloriosa virtutum suarum martyria destiterunt They did not cease to satisfie the Lord in the very midst of their glorious martyrdoms For so saith the Scripture Stans Azarias precatus est Azarias standing in the flames did pray and made his exomologesis or penitential confession to God with his two partners Thus also Tertullian describes the manner of the Primitive repentance Animum moeroribus dejicere illa quae peccavit tristi tractatione mutare caeterum pastum potum pura nosse non ventris scil sed animae causâ plerumque verò jejuntis preces alere ingemiscere lachrymari mugire dies noctésque ad Dominum Deum suum presbyteris advolvi caris Dei adgeniculari omnibus fratribus legationes deprecationis suae injungere To have our minds cast down with sorrow to change our sins into severity to take meat and drink without art simple and pure viz. bread and water not for the bellies sake but for the soul to nourish our prayers most commonly with fasting to sigh and cry and roar to God 〈◊〉 Lord day and night to be prostrate before the Ministers and Priests to kneel before all the servants of God and to desire all the brethren to pray to God for them Oportet orare impensiùs rogare so S. Cyprian we must pray and beg more earnestly and as Pacianus adds according to the words of Tertullian before cited multorum precibus adjuvare we must help our prayers with the assistance of others Pray to God said Simon Peter to Simon Magus if peradventure the thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee Pray for me said Simon Magus to S. Peter that the things which thou hast spoken may not happen to me And in this case the prayers of the Church and of the holy men that minister to the Church as they are of great avail in themselves so they were highly valued and earnestly desir'd and obtainâ—d by the penitents in the first Ages of the Church Alms. 81. Alms and Fasting are the wings of prayer and make it pierce the clouds That is humility and charity are the best advantages and sanctification of our desires to God This was the counsel of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar Eleemosynis peccata tua redime redeem thy sins by Alms so the Vulgar Latin reads it Not that money can be the price of a soul for we are not redeemed with silver and gold but that the charity of Alms is that which God delights in and accepts as done to himself and procures his pardon according to the words of Solomon In veritate misericordia expiatur iniquitas In truth and mercy iniquity is pardoned that is in the confession and Alms of a penitent there is pardon for water
great ones and hopes for more if he should do nothing but what is necessary that is nothing but what he is compell'd to then he hath the obligations of a son and the affections of a slave which is the greatest undecency of the world in the accounts of Christianity If a Christian will do no more than what is necessary he will quickly be tempted to omit something of that also And it is highly considerable that in the matter of souls Necessity is a divisible word and that which in disputation is not necessary may be necessary in practice it may be but charity to one and duty to another that is when it is not a necessary duty it may be a necessary charity And therefore it were much the better if every man without further inquiry would in the accounts of his soul consult a spiritual Guide and whether it be necessary or no yet let him do it because it is good and even they who will not for Gods sake do that which is simply the best yet for their own sakes they will or ought to do that which is profitable and of great advantage Let men do that which is best to themselves for it is all one to God save only that he is pleas'd to take such instances of duty and forwardness of obedience as the best significations of the best love And of this nature is Confession of sins to a Minister of Religion it is one of the most charitable works in the world to our selves and in this sence we may use the words of David If thou dost well unto thy self men and God will speak good of thee and do good to thee He that will do every thing that is lawful and nothing but what is necessary will be an enemy when he dares and a friend when he cannot help it 109. But if the penitent person hath been an habitual sinner in his confessions he is to take care that the Minister of Religion understand the degrees of his wickedness the time of his abode in sin the greatness of his desires the frequency of his acting them not told by numbers but by general significations of the time and particular significations of the earnestness of his choice For this transaction being wholly in order to the benefit and conduct of his soul the good man that ministers must have as perfect moral accounts as he can but he is not to be reckon'd withal by natural numbers and measures save only so far as they may declare the violence of desires and the pleasures and choice of the sin The purpose of this advice is this that since the transaction of this affair is for counsel and comfort in order to pardon and the perfections of repentance there should be no scruple in the particular circumstances of it but that it be done heartily and wisely that is so as may best serve the ends to which it is designed and that no man do it in despite of himself or against his will for the thing it self is not a direct service of God immediately enjoyn'd but is a service to our selves to enable us to do our duty to God and to receive a more ready and easie and certain pardon from him They indeed who pretend it as a necessary duty have by affixing rules and measures to it of their own made that which they call necessary to be intolerable and impossible Indeed it is certain that when God hath appointed a duty he also will describe the measures or else leave us to the conduct of our own choice and reason in it But where God hath not described the measures we are to do that which is most agreeable to the analogy of the commandment or the principal duty in case it be under a command but if it be not then we are only to chuse the particulars so as may best minister to the end which is designed in the whole ministration 110. XXI It is a very pious preparation to the holy Sacrament that we confess our sins to the Minister of Religion for since it is necessary that a man be examined and a self-examination was prescrib'd to the Corinthians in the time of their lapsed discipline that though there were divisions amongst them and no established Governours yet from this duty they were not to be excus'd and they must in destitution of a publick Minister do it themselves but this is in case only of such necessity the other is better that is it is of better order and more advantage that this part of Repentance and holy preparation be perform'd under the conduct of a spiritual Guide And the reason is pressing For since it is life or death that is there administred and the great dispensation of the Keys is in that Ministery it were very well if he that ministers did know whether the person presented were fit to communicate or no and if he be not it is charity to reject him and charity to assist him that he may be fitted There are many sad contingencies in the constitution of Ecclesiastical affairs in which every man that needs this help and would fain make use of it cannot but when he can meet with the blessing it were well it were more frequently used and more readily entertain'd I end these advices with the words of Origen Extra veniam est qui peccatum cognovit nec cognitum confitetur Confitendum autem semper est non quòd peccatum supersit ut semper sit confitendum sed quia peccati veteris antiqui utilis 〈◊〉 indefessa confessio He shall have no pardon who knows his sin and confesses it not But we must confess always not that the sin always remains but that of an old sin an unwearied confession is useful and profitable But this is to be understood of a general accusation or of a confession to God For in confessions to men there is no other usefulness of repeating our confessions excepting where such repetition does aggravate the fault of relapsing and ingratitude in case the man returns to those sins for which he hop'd that before he did receive a pardon SECT IX BUT because in all repentances there is something penal it is not amiss that there be some inquiries after the measures and rules of acting that part of repentance which consists in corporal austerities and are commonly called Penances 111. I. He that hath a great sorrow need neither be invited nor instructed in the matter of his austerities For a great sorrow and its own natural expressions and significations such as are Fastings and abstinence and tears and indignation and restlesness of mind and prayers for pardon and mortification of the sin are all that which will perfect this part of repentance Only sometime they need caution for the degrees Therefore 112. II. Let the penitent be careful that he do not injure his health or oppress his spirit by the zeal of this part of repentance Sic enim peccata compescenda sunt ut
Original Sin is the lust or concupiscence that is the proneness to sin Now then I demand whether Concupiscence before actual consent be a sin or no and if it be a sin whether it deserves damnation That all sin deserves damnation I am sure our Church denies not If therefore concupiscence before consent be a sin then this also deserves damnation where-ever it is and if so then a man may be damned for Original Sin even after Baptism For even after Baptism concupiscence or the sinfulness of Original Sin remains in the regenerate and that which is the same thing the same viciousness the same enmity to God after Baptism is as damnable it deserves damnation as much as that did that went before If it be replied that Baptism takes off the guilt or formal part of it but leaves the material part behind that is though concupiscence remains yet it shall not bring damnation to the regenerate or Baptized I answer that though baptismal regeneration puts a man into a state of grace and favour so that what went before shall not be imputed to him afterwards that is Adam's sin shall not bring damnation in any sence yet it hinders not but that what is sinful afterwards shall be then imputed to him that is he may be damn'd for his own concupiscence He is quitted from it as it came from Adam but by Baptism he is not quitted from it as it is subjected in himself if I say concupiscence before consent be a sin If it be no sin then for it Infants unbaptized cannot with justice be damn'd it does not deserve damnation but if it be a sin then so long as it is there so long it deserves damnation and Baptism did only quit the relation of it to Adam for that was all that went before it but not the danger of the man * But because the Article supposes that it does not damn the regenerate or baptized and yet that it hath the nature of sin it follows evidently and undeniably that both the phrases are to be diminished and understood in a favourable sence As the phrase the Nature of sin signifies so does Damnation but the Nature of sin signifies something that brings no guilt because it is affirm'd to be in the Regenerate therefore Damnation signifies something that brings no Hell but to deserve Damnation must mean something less than ordinary that is that concupiscence is a thing not morally good not to be allowed of not to be nurs'd but mortifi'd fought against disapprov'd condemn'd and disallowed of men as it is of God And truly My Lord to say that for Adam's sin it is just in God to condemn Infants to the eternal flames of Hell and to say that concupiscence or natural inclinations before they pass into any act could bring eternal condemnation from Gods presence into the eternal portion of Devils are two such horrid propositions that if any Church in the world would expresly affirm them I for my part should think it unlawful to communicate with her in the defence or profession of either and to think it would be the greatest temptation in the world to make men not to love God of whom men so easily speak such horrid things I would suppose the Article to mean any thing rather than either of these But yet one thing more I have to say The Article is certainly to be expounded according to the analogy of faith and the express words of Scripture if there be any that speak expresly in this matter Now whereas the Article explicating Original Sin affirms it to be that fault or corruption of mans nature vitium Naturae not peccatum by which he is far gone from Original righteousness and is inclin'd to evil because this is not full enough the Article adds by way of explanation So that the flesh lusteth against the spirit that is it really produces a state of evil temptations It lusteth that is actually and habitually it lusteth against the spirit and therefore deserves Gods wrath and damnation So the Article Therefore for no other reason but because the flesh lusteth against the spirit not because it can lust or is apta nata to lust but because it lusteth actually therefore it deserves damnation and this is Original Sin or as the Article expresses it it hath the nature of sin it is the fomes or matter of sin and is in the Original of mankind and deriv'd from Adam as our body is but it deserves not damnation in the highest sence of the word till the concupiscence be actual Till then the words of Wrath and Damnation must be meant in the less and more easie signification according to the former explication and must only relate to the personal sin of Adam To this sence of the Article I heartily subscribe For besides the reasonableness of the thing and the very manner of speaking us'd in the Article it is the very same way of speaking and exactly the same doctrine which we find in S. James Jam. 1.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concupiscence when it is impregnated when it hath conceiv'd then it brings forth sin and sin when it is in production and birth brings forth death But in Infants concupiscence is innocent and a virgin it conceives not and therefore is without sin and therefore without death or damnation * Against these expositions I cannot imagine what can be really and materially objected But my Lord I perceive the main out-cry is like to be upon the authority of the Harmony of Confessions Concerning which I shall say this That in this Article the Harmony makes as good musick as Bells ringing backward and they agree especially when they come to be explicated and untwisted into their minute and explicite meanings as much as Lutheran and Calvinist as Papist and Protestant as Thomas and Scotus as Remonstrant and Dordrechtan that is as much as pro and con or but a very little more I have not the book with me here in prison and this neighbourhood cannot supply me and I dare not trust my memory to give a scheme of it but your Lordship knows that in nothing more do the Reformed Churches disagree than in this and its appendages and you are pleased to hint something of it by saying that some speak more of this than the Church of England and Andrew Rivet though unwillingly yet confesses De Confessionibus nostris earum syntagmate vel Harmonia etiamsi in non nullis capitibus non planè conveniant dicam tamen melius in corcordiam redigi posse quà m in Ecclesia Romana concordantiam discordantium Canonum quo titulo decretum Gratiani quod Canonistis regulas praefigit solet insigniri And what he affirms of the whole collection is most notorious in the Article of Original Sin For my own part I am ready to subscribe the first Helvetian confession but not the second So much difference there is in the confessions of the same Church Now whereas your Lordship adds that though they
longer But your Lordship adds further And to remember how often he calls Concupiscence Sin I know S. Paul reckons Concupiscence to be one of the works of the flesh and consequently such as excludes from Heaven Col. 3.5 Evil Concupiscence concupiscence with something superadded but certainly that is nothing that is natural for God made nothing that is evil and whatsoever is natural and necessary cannot be mortified but this may and must and the Apostle calls upon us to do it but that this is a superinducing and an actual or habitual lusting appears by the following words Verse 7. in which ye also walked sometimes when ye lived in them such a concupiscence as that which is the effect of habitual sins or an estate of sins of which the Apostle speaks Rom. 7.8 Sin taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence that is so great a state of evil such strong inclinations and desires to sin that I grew as captive under it it introduced a necessity like those in S. Peter who had eyes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 full of an Adulteress the women had possessed their eyes and therefore they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they could not cease from sin because having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all concupiscence that is the very spirit of sinful desires they could relish nothing but the productions of sin they could fancy nothing but Colloquintida and Toadstools of the Earth * Once more I find S. Paul speaking of Concupiscence 1 Thess. 4.5 Let every man know to possess his vessel in holiness and honour not in the lust of concupiscence as do the Gentiles which know not God In the lust of Concupiscence that is plainly in lustfulness and impurity for it is a Hebraism where a superlative is usually expressed by the synonymon as Lutum coeni pluvia imbris so the Gall of bitterness and the iniquity of sins Robur virium the blackness of darkness that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the outer darkness or the greatest darkness so here the lus◠of Concupiscence that is the vilest and basest of it I know no where else that the Apostle uses the word in any sence But the like is to be said of the word lust which the Apostle often uses for the habits produced or the pregnant desires but never for the natural principle and affection when he speaks of sin But your Lordship is pleased to add a subtlety in pursuance of your former advices and notices which I confess I shall never understand Although Baptism take away the guilt as concretively redounding to the person yet the simple abstracted guilt as to the Nature remains for Sacraments are administred to persons not to natures This I suppose those persons from whom your Lordship reports it intended as an answer to a secret objection For if Concupiscence be a sin and yet remains after Baptism then what good does Baptism effect But if it be no sin after then it is no sin before To this it is answered as you see there is a double guilt a guilt of person and of nature That is taken away this is not for Sacraments are given to Persons not to Natures But first where is there such a distinction set down in Scripture or in the prime Antiquity or in any moral Philosopher There is no humane nature but what is in the persons of men and though our understanding can make a separate consideration of these or rather consider a person in a double capacity in his personal and in his natural that is if I am to speak sence a person may be considered in that which is proper to him and in that which is common to him and others yet these two considerations cannot make two distinct subjects capable of such different events I will put it to the trial This guilt that is in nature what is it Is it the same thing that was in the person that is is it an obligation to punishment If it be not I know not the meaning of the word and therefore I have nothing to do with it If it be then if this guilt or obligation to punishment remains in the nature after it is taken from the person then if this concupiscence deserve damnation this nature shall be damned though the person be saved Let the Objectors my Lord chuse which they will If it does not deserve damnation why do they say it does If it does then the guilty may suffer what they deserve but the innocent or the absolved must not the person then being acquitted and the nature not acquitted the nature shall be damn'd and the person be saved But if it be said that the guilt remains in the nature to certain purposes but not to all then I reply so it does in the person for it is in the person after Baptism so as to be a perpetual possibility and proneness to sin and a principle of trouble and if it be no otherwise in the nature then this distinction is to no purpose if it be otherwise in the nature then it brings damnation to it when it brings none to the Man and then the former argument must return But whether it prevail or no yet I cannot but note that what is here affirmed is expresly against the words commonly attributed to S. Cyprian De ablutione pedum Sic abluit quos parentalis labes infecerat ut nec actualis nec Originalis macula post ablutionem illam ulla sui vestigia derelinquat How this supposing it of Baptism can be reconcil'd with the guilt remaining in the nature I confess I cannot give an account It is expresly against S. Austin Tom. 9. Tract 41. in Johan Epist. ad Ocean saying deleta est tota iniquitas expresly against S. Hierome Quomodo justificati sumus sanctificati si peccatum aliquid in nobis relinquitur But again My Lord I did suppose that Concupiscence or Original Sin had been founded in nature and had not been a personal but a natural evil I am sure so the Article of our Church affirms it is the fault and corruption of our Nature And so S. Bonaventure affirms in the words cited by your Lordship in your Letter Sicut peccatum actuale tribuitur alicui ratione singularis personae ita peccatum originis tribuitur ratione naturae Either then the Sacrament must have effect upon our Nature to purifie that which is vitiated by Concupiscence or else it does no good at all For if the guilt or sin be founded in the nature as the Article affirms and Baptism does not take off the guilt from the nature then it does nothing Now since your Lordship is pleas'd in the behalf of the objectors so warily to avoid what they thought pressing I will take leave to use the advantages it ministers for so the Serpent teaches us where to strike him by his so warily and guiltily defending his head I therefore argue thus Either Baptism does not take off the guilt of Original Sin
mystery of the glorious Unity in Trinity we alledge that saying of Saint John there are three which bear witness in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one the Antitrinitarians think they have answered the Argument by saying the Syrian Translation and divers Greek Copies have not that verse in them and therefore being of doubtful Authority cannot conclude with certainty in a Question of Faith And there is an instance on the Catholick part For when the Arrians urge the saying of our Saviour No man knows that day and hour viz. of Judgment no not the Son but the Father only to prove that the Son knows not all things and therefore cannot be God in the proper sence St. Ambrose thinks he hath answered the Argument by saying those words no not the Son was thrust into the Text by the fraud of the Arrians So that here we have one objection which must first be cleared and made infallible before we can be ascertain'd in any such Question as to call them Hereticks that dissent 5. Secondly I consider that there are very many sences and designs of expounding Scripture and when the Grammatical sence is found out we are many times never the nearer it is not that which was intended for there is in very many Scriptures a double sence a literal and a Spiritual for the Scripture is a Book written within and without Apoc. 5. And both these sences are sub-divided For the literal sence is either natural or figurative And the Spiritual is sometimes allegorical sometimes anagogical nay sometimes there are divers literal sences in the same sentence as Saint Austin excellently proves in divers places and it appears in divers quotations in the New Testament where the Apostles and Divine Writers bring the same Testimony to divers purposes and particularly St. Paul's making that saying of the Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee to be an Argument of Christs Resurrection and a designation or ordination to his Pontificate is an instance very famous in his first and fifth Chapters to the Hebrews But now there being such variety of sences in Scripture and but few places so marked out as not to be capable of divers sences if mâ—n will write Commentaries as Herod made Orations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what infallible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be left whereby to judge of the certain dogmatical resolute sence of such places which have been the matter of Question For put case a Question were commenced concerning the degrees of glory in heaven as there is in the Schools a noted one To shew an inequality of reward Christs Parable is brought of the reward of ten Cities and of five according to the divers improvement of the Talents this sence is mystical and yet very probable and understood by men for ought I know to this very sence And the result of the Argument is made good by Saint Paul as one star differeth from another in glory so shall it be in the resurrection of the dead Now suppose another should take the same liberty of Expounding another Parable to a mystical sence and Interpretation as all Parables must be expounded then the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard and though differing in labour yet having an equal reward to any mans understanding may seem very strongly to prove the contrary and as if it were of purpose and that it were primum intentum of the Parable the Lord of the Vineyard determined the point resolutely upon the mutiny and repining of them that had born the burthen and heat of the day I will give unto this last even as to thee which to my sence seems to determine the Question of degrees They that work but little and they that work long shall not be distinguished in the reward though accidentally they were in the work And if this opinion could but answer St. Pauls words it stands as fair and perhaps fairer than the other Now if we look well upon the words of Saint Paul we shall find he speaks nothing at all of diversity of degrees of glory in beatified bodies but the differences of glory in bodies heavenly and earthly There are says he bodies earthly and there are heavenly bodies And one is the glory of the earthly another the glory of the heavenly one glory of the Sun another of the Moon c. So shall it be in the Resurrection For it is sown in corruption it is raised in incorruption Plainly thus our bodies in the Resurrection shall differ as much from our bodies here in the state of corruption as one Star does from another And now suppose a Sect should be commenced upon this Question upon lighter and vainer many have been either side must resolve to answer the others Argument whether they can or no and to deny to each other a liberty of Expounding the Parable to such a sence and yet themselves must use it or want an Argument But men use to be unjust in their own cases And were it not better to leave each other to their liberty and seek to preserve their own charity For when the words are capable of a mystical or a divers sence I know not why mens fancies or understandings should be more bound to be like one another than their faces And either in all such places of Scripture a liberty must be indulged to every honest and peaceable wise man or else all Argument from such places must be wholly declined Now although I instanced in a Question which by good fortune never came to open defiance yet there have been Sects framed upon lighter grounds more inconsiderable Questions which have been disputed on either side with Arguments less material and less pertinent Saint Austin laught at the Donatists for bringing that saying of the Spouse in the Canticles to prove their Schism Indica mihi ubi pascas ubi cubes in meridie For from thence they concluded the residence of the Church was only in the South part of the World only in Africa It was but a weak way of Argument yet the Fathers were free enough to use such mediums to prove mysteries of great concernment but yet again when they speak either against an Adversary or with consideration they deny that such mystical sences can sufficiently confirm a Question of Faith But I shall instance in the great Question of Rebaptization of Hereticks which many Saints and Martyrs and Confessours and divers Councils and almost all Asia and Africa did once believe and practise Their grounds for the invalidity of the baptism by a Heretick were such mystical words as these Oleum peccatoris non impinguet caput meum Ps. 140. And Qui baptizatur à mortuo quid proficit lavatio ejus Ecclus. 34. And Ab aquâ alienâ abstinete Prov. 5. And Deus peccatores non exaudit Joh. 9. And he that is not with me is against me Luke 11. I am not sure the other part had Arguments so
family for it is said of the Ruler at Capernaum that he believed and all his house Now you may also suppose that in his house were little babes that is likely enough and you may suppose that they did believe too before they could understand but that 's not so likely and then the argument from baptizing of Stephen's houshold may be allowed just as probable But this is unman-like to build upon such slight airy conjectures 25. But Tradition by all means must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical that Infants were baptized But at this we are not much moved for we who rely upon the written Word of God as sufficient to establish all true Religion do not value the Allegation of Traditions And however the world goes none of the Reformed Churches can pretend this Argument against this Opinion because they who reject Tradition when 't is against them must not pretend it at all for them But if we should allow the Topick to be good yet how will it be verified For so far as it can yet appear it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen for from him Austin had it For as for the testimony pretended out of Justin Martyr it is to no purpose because the book from whence the words are cited is not Justin's who was before Origen and yet he cites Origen Irenaeus But who please may see it sufficiently condemned by Sixtus Senensis Biblioth Sanct. l. 4. verbo Justinus And as for the â—â—stimony of Origen we know nothing of it for every Heretick interessed person did interpolate all his Works so much that we cannot discern which are his which not Now a Tradition Apostolical if it be not consigned with a fuller testimony then of one person whom all after Ages have condemned of many errours will obtain so little reputation amongst those who know that things have upon greater Authority pretended to derive from the Apostles and yet falsely that it will be a great Argument that he is â—redulous weak that shall be determined by so weak probation in matters of so great concernment And the truth of the business is as there was no command of Scripture to oblige children to the susception of it so the necessity of Paedo-baptism was not determined in the Church till in the eighth Age after Christ but in the year 418. in the Milevitan Council a Provincial of Africa there was a Canon made for Paedo-baptism never till then I grant it was practised in Africa before that time they or some of them thought well of it though that be no Argument for us to think so yet none of them did ever before pretend it to be necessary none to have been a precept of the Gospel S. Austin was the first that ever preached it to be absolutely necessary and it was in his heat anger against Pelagius who had warmed chased him so in that question that it made him innovate in other Doctrines possibly of more concernment then this And although this was practised anciently in Africa yet that it was without an opinion of necessity and not often there nor at all in other places we have the testimony of the learned Paedo-baptist Ludovicus Vives who in his Annotations upon Saint Austin De Civit. Dei l. 1. c. 27. affirms neminem nisi adultum antiquitus solere baptizari 26. But besides that the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical we have very good evidence from Antiquity that it was the opinion of the Primitive Church that Infants ought not to be baptized and this is clear in the sixth Canon of the Council of Nâ—ocaesarea The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sense is this A woman with child may be baptized when she please for her Baptism concerns not the child The reason of the connexion of the parts of that Canon is in the following words Because every one in that confession is to give a demonstration of his own choice and election Meaning plainly that if the Baptism of the mother did also pass upon the child it were not fit for a pregnant woman to receive Baptism because in that Sacrament there being a confession of Faith which confession supposes understanding and free choice it is not reasonable the child should be consigned with such a mysterie since it cannot doe any act of choice or understanding And to this purpose are the words of Balsamon speaking of this Decree and of Infants unborn not to be baptized he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The unborn babe is not to be baptized because he neither is come to light nor can he make choice of the confession that is of the Articles to be confessed in Divine baptism To the same sense are the words of Zonaras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Embryo or unborn babe does then need Baptism when he can chuse The Canon speaks reason and it intimates a practice which was absolutely universal in the Church of interrogating the Catechumens concerning the Articles of Creed Which is one Argument that either they did not admit Infants to Baptism or that they did prevaricate egregiously in asking questions of them who themselves knew were not capable of giving answer But the former was the more probable according to the testimony of Walafridus Stabo Notandum deinde primis temporibus illis solummodo Baptismi gratiam dari solitam qui corporis mentisâ—integritate jam ad hoc pervenerunt ut scire intelligere possent quid emolumenti in Baptismo consequendum quid confitendum atque credendum quid postremò renatis in Christo esset servandum It is to be noted that in those first times the grace of Baptism was wont to be given to those onely who by their integrity of mind and body were arrived to this that they could know and understand what profit was to be had by Baptism what was to be confessed and believ'd in Baptism and what is the duty of them who are born again in Christ. 27. But to supply their incapacity by the answer of a Godfather is but the same unreasonableness acted with a worse circumstance and there is no sensible account can be given of it For that which some imperfectly murmure concerning stipulations civil performed by Tutors in the name of their Pupils is an absolute vanity For what if by positive constitution of the Romans such solennites of Law are required in all stipulations and by indulgence are permitted in the case of a notable benefit accruing to Minors must God be tied and Christian Religion transact her mysteries by proportion and compliance with the Law of the Romans I know God might if he would have appointed Godfathers to give answer in behalf of the Children and to be Fide jussors for them but we cannot find any Authority or ground that he hath and if he had then it is to be supposed he would have given them commission to
Disciples But he told it to the Jews and yet it does not follow that they should all be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire but it is meant onely that that glorious effect should be to them a sign of Christ's eminency above him they should see from him a Baptism greater then that of John And that it must be meant of that miraculous descent of the Holy Spirit in Pentecost and not of any secret gift or private immission appears because the Baptist offered it as a sign and testimony of the prelation and greatness of Christ above him which could not be proved to them by any secret operation which cometh not by observation but by a great and miraculous mission such as was that in Pentecost So that hence to argue that we may as well conclude that Infants must also pass through the fire as through the water is a false conclusion inferred from no premisses because this being onely a Prophecy and inferring no duty could neither concern men or children to any of the purposes of their Argument For Christ never said Vnless ye be baptized with fire and the Spirit ye shall not enter into the Kingdome of heaven but of water and the Spirit he did say it therefore though they must pass through the water yet no smell of fire must pass upon them But there are yet two things by which they offer to escape The one is that in these words Baptism by water is not meant at all but Baptism by the Spirit onely because S. Peter having said that Baptism saves us he addes by way of explication not the washing of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God plainly saying that it is not water but the Spirit To this I reply that when water is taken exclusively to the Spirit it is very true that it is not water that cleanses the Soul and the cleansing of the body cannot save us but who-ever urges the necessity of Baptism urges it but as a necessary Sacrament or Instrument to convey or consign the Spirit and this they might with a little observation have learned there being nothing more usual in discourse then to deny the effect to the instrument when it is compared with the principle and yet not intend to deny to it an instrumental efficiency It is not the pen that writes well but the hand and S. Paul said It is not I but the grace of God and yet it was gratia Dei mecum that is the principal and the less principal together So S. Peter It is not water but the Spirit or which may come to one and the same not the washing the filth of the flesh but purifying the conscience that saves us and yet neither one nor the other are absolutely excluded but the effect which is denied to the instrument is attributed to the principal cause But however this does no more concern Infants then men of age for they are not saved by the washing the body but by the answer of a good conscience by the Spirit of holiness and sanctification that is water alone does not doe it unless the Spirit move upon the water But that water also is in the ministery and is not to be excluded from its portion of the work appears by the words of the Apostle The like figure whereunto even Baptism saves us c. that is Baptism even as it is a figure saves us in some sense of other by way of ministery and instrumental efficiency by conjunction and consolidation with the other but the ceremony the figure the Rite and external ministery must be in or else his words will in no sense be true and could be made true by no interpretation because the Spirit may be the thing figured but can never be a figure The other little 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is that these words were spoken before Baptism was ordained and therefore could not concern Baptism much less prove the necessity of baptizing Infants I answer that so are the sayings of the Prophets long before the coming of Christ and yet concerned his coming most certainly Secondly They were not spoken before the institution of Baptism for the Disciples of Christ did baptize more then the Baptist ever in his life-time they were indeed spoken before the commission was of baptizing all nations or taking the Gentiles into the Church but not before Christ made Disciples and his Apostles baptized them among the Jews And it was so known a thing that great Prophets and the Fathers of an Institution did baptize Disciples that our Blessed Saviour upbraided Nicodemus for his ignorance of that particular and his not understanding words spoken in the proportion and imitation of custome so known among them But then that this Argument which presses so much may be attempted in all the parts of it like Souldiers fighting against Curiassiers that try all the joynts of their armour so doe these to this For they object in the same number that the exclusive negative of Nisi quis does not include Infants but onely persons capable for say they this no more infers a necessity of Infants Baptism then the parallel words of Christ Nisi comâ—deritis unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you infer a necessity to give them the holy Communion c. With this Argument men use to make a great noise in many Questions but in this it will signifie but little First Indeed to one of the Roman Communion it will cause some disorder in this Question both because they think it unlawfull to give the holy Communion to Infants and yet that these words are meant of the holy Communion and if we thought so too I do not doubt but we should communicate them with the same opinion of necessity as did the Primitive Church But to the thing itself I grant that the expression is equal and infers an equal necessity in their respective cases and therefore it is as necessary to eat the flesh of the Son of man and to drink his bloud as to be baptized but then it is to be added that eating and drinking are metaphors and allusions us'd onely upon occasion of Manna which was then spoken of and which occasioned the whole discourse but the thing itself is nothing but that Christ should be received for the life of our Souls as bread and drink is for the life of our bodies Now because there are many ways of receiving Christ there are so many ways of obeying this precept but that some way or other it be obeyed is as necessary as that we be baptized Here onely it is declared to be necessary that Christ be received that we derive our life and our spiritual and eternall being from him now this can concern Infants and does infer an ordinary necessity of their Baptism for in Baptism they are united to Christ and Christ to them in Baptism they receive the beginnings of a new life
lawful or not but which were better To Confirm Infants or to stay to their Childhood or to their riper years Aquinas Bonaventure and some others say it is best that they be Confirmed in their Infancy quia dolus non est nec obicem ponunt they are then without craft and cannot hinder the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them And indeed it is most agreeable with the Primitive practice that if they were Baptized in Infancy they should then also be Confirmed according to that of the famous Epistle of Melchiades to the Bishops of Spain Ità conjuncta sunt haec duo Sacramenta ut ab invicem nisi morte praeveniente non possint separari unum altero ritè persici non potest Where although he expresly affirms the Rites to be two yet unless it be in cases of necessity they are not to be severed and one without the other is not perfect which in the sence formerly mentioned is true and so to be understood That to him who is Baptized and is not Confirmed something very considerable is wanting and therefore they ought to be joyned though not immediately yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to reasonable occasions and accidental causes But in this there must needs be a liberty in the Church not only for the former reasons but also because the Apostles themselves were not Confirmed till after they had received the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Others therefore say That to Confirm them of Riper years is with more edification The confession of Faith is more voluntary the election is wiser the submission to Christ's discipline is more acceptable and they have more need and can make better use of their strengths than derived by the Holy Spirit of God upon them and to this purpose it is commanded in the Canon Law that they who are confirmed should be perfectae aetatis of full age upon which the Gloss says Perfectam vocat fortè duodecim annorum Twelve years old was a full age because at those years they might then be admitted to the lower services in the Church But the reason intimated and implied by the Canon is because of the Preparation to it They must come Fasting and they must make publick Confession of their Faith And indeed that they should do so is matter of great edification as also are the advantages of choice and other preparatory abilities and dispositions above-mentioned They are matter of edification I say when they are done but then the delaying of them so long before they be done and the wanting the aids of the Holy Ghost conveyed in that Ministery are very prejudicial and are not matter of edification But therefore there is a third way which the Church of England and Ireland follows and that is that after Infancy but yet before they understand too much of Sin and when they can competently understand the Fundamentals of Religion then it is good to bring them to be Confirmed that the Spirit of God may prevent their youthful sins and Christ by his Word and by his Spirit may enter and take possession at the same time And thus it was in the Church of England long since provided and commanded by the Laws of King Edgar cap. 15. Vt nullus ab Episcopo confirmari diu nimiùm detrectârit That none should too long put off his being Confirmed by the Bishop that is as is best expounded by the perpetual practice almost ever since as soon as ever by Catechism and competent instruction they were prepared it should not be deferred If it have been omitted as of late years it hath been too much as we do in Baptism so in this also it may be taken at any age even after they have received the Lord's Supper as I observed before in the Practice and Example of the Apostles themselves which in this is an abundant warrant But still the sooner the better I mean after that Reason begins to dawn but ever it must be taken care of that the Parents and God-fathers the Ministers and Masters see that the Children be catechised and well instructed in the Fundamentals of their Religion For this is the necessary preparation to the most advantageous reception of this Holy Ministery In Ecclesâ—is potissimùm Latinis non nisi adultiore aetate pueros admitti videmus vel hanc certè ob causam ut Parentibus Susceptoribus Ecclesiarum Praesectis occasio detur pueros de Fide quam in Baptismo professi sunt diligentiùs instituendi admonendi said the excellent Cassander In the Latin Churches they admit children of some ripeness of age that they may be more diligently taught and instructed in the Faith And to this sence agree S. Austin Walafridus Strabo Ruardus Lovaniensis and Mr. Calvin For this was ever the practice of the Primitive Church to be infinitely careful of Catechizing those who came and desired to be admitted to this holy Rite they used Exorcisms or Catechisms to prepare them to Baptism and Confirmation I said Exorcisms or Catechisms for they were the same thing if the notion be new yet I the more willingly declare it not only to free the Primitive Church from the suspicion of Superstition in using Charms or Exorcisms according to the modern sence of the word or casting of the Devil out of innocent Children but also to remonstrate the perpetual practice of Catechizing Children in the eldest and best times of the Church Thus the Greek Scholiast upon Harmenopulus renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primitive Exorcist was the Catechist And Balsamon upon the 26. Canon of the Council of Laodicea says that to Exorcize is nothing but to Catechize the unbelievers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some undertook to Exorcize that is says he to Catechize the unbelievers And S. Cyril in his Preface to his Catechisms speaking to the Illuminati Festinent says he pedes tui ad Catecheses audiendas Exorcismos studiosè suscipe c. Let your feet run hastily to hear the Catechisms studiously receive the Exorcisms although thou beest already inspired and exorcized that is although you have been already instructed in the Mysteries yet still proceed For without Exorcisms or Catechisms the Soul cannot go forward since they are Divine and gathered out of the Scriptures And the reason why these were called Exorcisms he adds Because when the Exorcists or Catechists by the Spirit of God produce fear in your hearts and do inkindle the Spirit as in a furnace the Devil flies away and Salvation and hope of Life Eternal does succeed according to that of the Evangelist concerning Christ They were astonished at his Doctrine for his word was with power and that of S. Luke concerning Paul and Barnabas The Deputy when he saw what was done was astonished at the Doctrine of the Lord. It is the Lord's Doctrine that hath the power to cast out Devils and work Miracles Catechisms are the best Exorcisms
explained 777 n. 26. Chap. 8.7 explained 781 n. 31. Chap. 7.22 23. explained 781 n. 31. Chap. 5.10 explained 818 n. 77. Rosary What it is 328. S. Sabbath THE observation of the Lord's day relieth not upon Tradition 428. The Jewish and Christian Sabbath were for many years in the Christian Church kept together 428. Sacraments The Sacraments as the Romanists teach do not onely convey Grace but supply the defect of it 337. The Romanists cannot agree about the definition of a Sacrament 404. They impute greater virtue to their Sacramentals then to the Sacraments themselves 429. The Church of God used of old to deny the Sacrament to no dying penitent that desired it 696. Of Confession to a Priest in preparation to the Sacrament 857. Saints The Romanists teach and practise the Invocation of Saints 329 332. and that with the same confidence and in the same style as they do to God ibid. They do not onely pray to Saints to pray for them but they relie upon their merits 330. They have a Saint for every malady 330. It is held ominous for a Pope to canonize a Saint 333 c. 2. § 9. Of the Invocation of Saints 467. Salvation The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to Salvation 436. What Articles the Scripture proposeth as necessary to Salvation 436 437. The Church of Rome imposeth Articles of her own devising as necessary to Salvation 461. Of the Salvation of unbaptized Infants that are born of Christian parents 471. 1. Book of Samuel Chap. 2. v. 25. explained 812 813 n. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it meaneth in the style of the New Testament 724 n. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 767 781. Satisfaction One may according to the Roman doctrine satisfie for another man's sin 322 c. 2. § 6. The use of that word in Classical Authours 844 845 n. 72. It was the same with Confession 845 n. 72. What it signified in the sense of the Ancients 844 and 832 n. 34. The Ancients did not believe Satisfaction simply necessary to the procuring pardon from God 847. Schism Photius was the first Authour of the Schism between the Greek and Latin Church 109 § 33. What Schism is 149 § 46. The whole stress of Religion Schismaticks commonly place in their own distinguishing Article 459. Scripture To make new Articles of Faith that are not in Scripture as the Papists do is condemned by the suffrage of the Fathers Pref. to Diss. pag. 4 5. Christ and his Apostles made use of Scripture for arguments and not Tradition 353. An answer to that Objection Scripture proves not it self to be God's Word 353. An answer to that Objection Tradition is the best Argument to prove the Scripture to be the Word of God therefore it is a better Principle 354. The Romanists hold the Scripture for no Infallible Rule 381. Whether the Scripture be a sufficient Rule 405 406 407. In what case the Scripture can give testimony concerning it self 406. Scripture is more credible then the Church 407. To believe that the Scripture contains not all things necessary to Salvation is a fountain of most Errours and Heresies 409. The doctrine of the Scripture's sufficiency proved by Tradition 410. Some of the Fathers by Tradition mean Scripture 410 411 412. Things necessary to Salvation are in the Scripture easie and plain 418. Scripture is the best Interpreter of Scripture 419. Tradition is necessary because Scripture could not be conveyed to us without it 424. The Questions that arose in the Nicene Council were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. The Romanists by their doctrine of Tradition give great advantage to the Socinians 425. That the Doctrine of the Trinity relieth not upon Tradition but Scripture 425. That the Doctrine of Infant-baptism relieth not upon Tradition onely but Scripture 425 426. The validity of the Baptism of Hereticks is not to be proved by Tradition without Scripture 426 427. The procession of the Holy Ghost may be proved by Scripture without Tradition 427 428. What Articles the Scripture proposeth as necessary to Salvation 436 437. The Romanists teach that the Pope can make new Articles of Faith and a new Scripture 450. The Authority of the Church of Rome as they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. When in the Question between the Church and the Scripture they distinguish between Authority quoad nos and in se it salves not the difficulty 451. The Romanists reckon the Decretal Epistles of Popes among the Holy Scriptures 451. Eckius his pitiful Argument to prove the Authority of the Church to be above the Scriptures ibid. Variety of Readings in it 967. n. 4. As much difference in expounding it 967 n. 5. Of the several ways taken to expound it 971 972 973. Of expounding it by Analogy of Faith 973 974 n. 4. Saint Basil's testimony for Scripture against Tradition which Perron endeavours to elude vindicated 982 983. Nothing of Auricular Confession in Scripture 479. The manner of it is to include the Consequents in the Antecedent 679 n. 52. Secular Whether this Power can give Prohibitions against the Ecclesiastical 122 § 36. It was not unlawful for Bishops to take Secular Imployment 157 § 49. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after Secular imployments 157 § 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends 158 § 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it in gradu impedimenti 159 § 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold cares as secular imployment 160 § 49. Christian Emperours allowed Appeals in secular affairs from secular Tribunals to that of the Bishop 160 § 49. Saint Ambrose was Bishop and Prefect of Milain at the same time 161 § 49. Saint Austin's condition was somewhat like at Hippo 161. § 49. Bishops used in the Primitive Church to be Embassadours for their Princes 161 § 49. The Bishop or his Clerks might doe any office of Piety though of secular burthen 161 § 49. If a Secular Prince give a safe conduct the Romanists teach it binds not the Bishops that are under him 341. Sense If the doctrine of Transubstantiation be true then the truth of Christian Religion that relies upon evidence of sense is questionable 223 224 § 10. The Papists Answer to that Argument and our Reply 224 § 10. Bellarmine's Answer and our Reply upon it 226 § 10. If the testimony of our Senses be not in fit circumstances to be relied on the Catholicks could not have confuted the Valentinians and Marcionites 227 § 10. The Touch the most certain of the Senses ibid. Signat That word as also Consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifies Baptismal Unction 110 § 33. Vid. 20. b. Sin Venial sins hinder the fruit of Indulgences 320. The Papists teach the habit of the sin is not a distinct evil from the act of it 322. Of the distinction of sins mortal and venial 329 c.
probability for doing it is a very great crime and of dangerous consequence It was the greatest aggravation of the sin of Ananias and Sapphira 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they did falsly pretend and belye the Holy Spirit which crime besides that it dishonours the Holy Ghost to make him the President of imperfect and illiterate rites the Author of confusion and indeliberate Discourses and the Parent of such productions which a wise person would blush to own it also intitles him to all those Doctrines which either Chance or Design shall expose to the people in such prayers to which they entitle the holy Spirit as the Author and immediate Dictator So that if they please he must not only own their follies but their impieties too and how great disreputation this is to the Spirit of Wisdom of Counsel and of Holiness I wish they may rather understand by Discourse than by Experiment Sect. 37. BUT let us look a little further into the mystery and see what is meant in Scripture by praying with the spirit In what sence the holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Prayer I have already shewn viz. by the same reason as he is the Spirit of faith of prudence of knowledge of understanding and the like because he gives us assistances for the acquiring of these graces and furnishes us with revelations by way of object and instruction But praying with the Spirit hath besides this other sences also in Scripture I find in one place that we then pray with the Spirit when the Holy Ghost does actually excite us to desires and earnest tendencies to the obtaining our holy purpose when he prepares our hearts to pray when he enkindles our desires gives us zeal and devotion charity and fervour spiritual violence and holy importunity This sence is also in the latter part of the objected words of S. Paul Rom. 8. The Spirit it self maketh Intercession for us with groanings And indeed this is truly a praying with the Spirit but this will do our Reverend Brethren of the Assembly little advantage as to the present Question For this Spirit is not a Spirit of utterance not at all clamorous in the ears of the people but cries aloud in the ears of God with groans unutterable so it follows and only He that searcheth the heart he understandeth the meaning of the Spirit This is the Spirit of the Son which God hath sent into our hearts not into our tongues whereby we cry Abba Father Gal. 4.6 And this is the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for mental prayer which is properly and truly praying by the Spirit Sect. 38. ANOTHER praying with the Spirit I find in that place of St. Paul from whence this expression is taken and commonly used I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also It is generally supposed that Saint Paul relates here to a special and extraordinary gift of Prayer which was indulg'd to the Primitive Bishops and Priests the Apostles and Rulers of Churches and to some other Persons extraordinarily of being able to compose Prayers pious in the matter prudent in the composure devout in the forms expressive in the language and in short useful to the Church and very apt for devotion and serving to her Religion and necessities I believe that such a gift there was and this indulged as other issues of the Spirit to some persons upon special necessities by singular dispensation as the Spirit knew to be most expedient for the present need and the future instruction This I believe not because I find sufficient testimony that it was so or any evidence from the words now alledged but because it was reasonable it should be so and agreeable to the other proceedings of the Holy Ghost For although we account it an easie matter to make prayers and we have great reason to give thanks to the Holy Ghost for it who hath descended so plentifully upon the Church hath made plentiful revelation of all the publick and private necessities of the world hath taught us how to pray given rules for the manner of address taught us how to distinguish spiritual from carnal things hath represented the vanity of worldly desires the unsatisfyingness of earthly possessions the blessing of being denied our impertinent secular and indiscreet requests and hath done all this at the beginning of Christianity and hath actually stirred up the Apostles and Apostolical men to make so many excellent Forms of Prayer which their Successors did in part retain and in part imitate till the conjunct wisdom of the Church saw her Offices compleat regular and sufficient So that now every man is able to make something of Forms of Prayer for which ability they should do well to pay their Eucharist to the Holy Ghost and not abuse the gift to vanity or schism yet at the first beginning of Christianity till the holy Spirit did fill all things they found no such plenty of Forms of Prayer and it was accounted a matter of so great consideration to make a Form of Prayer that it was thought a fit work for a Prophet or the Founder of an Institution And therefore the Disciples of John asked of him to teach them how to pray and the Disciples of Christ did so too For the Law of Moses had no Rules to instruct the Synagogue how to pray and but that Moses and David and Asaph and some few of the Prophets more left forms of Prayer which the Spirit of God inspired them withall upon great necessities and great mercy to that people they had not known how to have composed an Office for the daily service of the Temple without danger of asking things needless vain or impious such as were the prayers in the Roman Closets that he was a good man that would not own them Et nihil arcano qui roget ore Deos. Pulchra Laverna Da mihi fallere da justum sanctúmque videri Noctem peccatis fraudibus objice nubem But when the Holy Ghost came down in a full breath and a mighty wind he filled the breasts and tongues of men and furnished the first Christians not only with abilities enough to frame excellent devotions for their present Offices but also to become precedents for Liturgie to all Ages of the Church the first being imitated by the second and the second by the third till the Church be setled in peace and the Records transmitted with greater care and preserved with less hazard the Church chose such Forms whose Copies we retain at this day Sect. 39. NOW since it was certain that all ages of the Church would look upon the first Fathers in Christ and Founders of Churches as precedents or Tutors and Guides in all the parts of their Religion and that prayer with its several parts and instances is a great portion of the Religion the Sacraments themselves being instruments of grace and effectual in genere orationis it is very reasonable to think that the Apostolical
men had not only the first fruits but the elder Brothers share a double portion of the Spirit because they were not only to serve their own needs to which a single and an ordinary portion would have been then as now abundantly sufficient but also to serve the necessity of the succession and to instruct the Church for ever after Sect. 40. BUT then that this assistance was an ability to pray ex tempore I find it no where affirmed by sufficient authentick Testimony and if they could have done it it is very likely they would have been wary and restrained in the publick use of it I doubt not but there might then be some sudden necessities of the Church for which the Church being in her infancy had not as yet provided any publick forms concerning which cases I may say as Quintilian of an Oratour in the great and sudden needs of the Commonwealth Quarum si qua non dico cuicunque innocentium civium sed amicorum ac propinquorum alicui evenerit stabÃtne mutus salutarem parentibus vocem statim si non succurratur perituris moras secessum silentium quaeret dum illa verba fabricentur memoriae insidant vox ac latus praeparetur I do not think that they were oratores imparati ad casus but that an ability of praying on a sudden was indulged to them by a special aid of the Spirit to contest against sudden dangers and the violence of new accidents to which also possibly a new inspiration was but for a very little while necessary even till they understood the mysteries of Christianity and the revelations of the Spirit by proportion and analogy to which they were sufficiently instructed to make their sudden prayers when sudden occasions did require Sect. 41. THIS I speak by way of concession and probability For no man can prove thus much as I am willing relying upon the reasonableness of the Conjecture to suppose but that praying with the Spirit in this place is praying without study art or deliberation is not so much as intimated Sect. 42. FOR first It is here implyed that they did prepare some of those devotions to which they were helped by the Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when you come together each of you peradventure hath a Psalm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not every one makes but when you meet every one hath viz. already which supposes they had it prepared against the meeting For the Spirit could help as well at home in their meditation as in the publick upon a sudden and though it is certain the Holy Spirit loves to bless the publick meetings the communion of Saints with special benedictions yet I suppose my Adversaries are not willing to acknowledge any thing that should do much reputation to the Church and the publick authoriz'd conventions at least not to confine the Spirit to such holy and blessed meetings They will I suppose rather grant the words do probably intimate they came prepared with a Hymn and therefore there is nothing in the nature of the thing but that so also might their other forms of Prayer the assistance of the Spirit which is the thing in Question hinders not but that they also might have made them by premeditation Sect. 43. SECONDLY In this place praying with the Spirit signifies no other extraordinary assistance but that the Spirit help'd them to speak their prayer in an unknown Tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If I pray in a tongue my spirit prayeth but my understanding is without fruit what then I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also Plainly here praying in the spirit which is opposed to praying in understanding is praying in an unknown tongue where by the way observe that praying with the spirit even in the sence of Scripture is not always most to edification of the people Not alwayes with understanding And when these two are separated St. Paul prefers five words with understanding before ten thousand in the spirit For this praying with the spirit was indeed then a gift extraordinary and miraculous like as prophesying with the spirit and expired with it But while it did last it was the lowest of gifts inter dona linguarum it was but a gift of the tongue and not to the benefit of the Church directly or immediately Sect. 44. THIS also observe in passing by If Saint Paul did so undervalue the praying with the Spirit that he preferred edifying the Church a thousand degrees beyond it I suppose he would have been of the same mind if the Question had been between praying with the Spirit and obeying our Superiours as he was when it was between praying with the Spirit and edification of the Church because if I be not mistaken it is matter of great concernment towards the edification of the Church to obey our Superiours not to innovate in publick forms of worship especially with the scandal and offence of very wise and learned men and to the disgrace of the dead Martyrs who sealed our Liturgie with their blood Sect. 45. BUT to return In this place praying with the Spirit beside the assistance given by the Holy Ghost to speak in a strange tongue is no more than my spirit praying that is it implies my co-operation with the assistance of the Spirit of God insomuch that the whole action may truly be denominated mine and is called of the Spirit only by reason of that collateral assistance For so Saint Paul joyns them as terms identical and expressive one of anothers meaning as you may please to read ver 14. and 15. 1 Cor. 14. I will pray with the spirit and my spirit truly prayeth It is the act of our inner man praying holy and spiritual prayers But then indeed at that time there was something extraordinary adjoyned for it was in an unknown Tongue the practice of which Saint Paul there dislikes This also will be to none of their purposes For whether it were ex tempore or by premeditation is not here expressed or if it had yet that assistance extraordinary in prayer if there was any beside the gift of Tongues which is not here or any where else expressed is no more transmitted to us than the speaking Tongues in the Spirit or prophesying ex tempore and by the Spirit Sect. 46. BUT I would add also one experiment which Saint Paul also there adds by way of instance If praying with the Spirit in this place be praying ex tempore then so is singing too For they are expressed in the same place in the same manner to the same end and I know no reason why there should be differing sences put upon them to serve purposes And now let us have some Church Musick too though the Organs be pull'd down and let any the best Psalmist of them all compose a Hymn in Metrical form as Antipater Sidonius in Quintilian and Licinius Archias in Cicero could
applicable to particular instances so that first since the Spirit being the great Dictator of holy prayers and secondly the Spirit is promised to the Church in her united capacity and thirdly in proportion to the Assembled caeteris paribus so are measures of the Spirit powred out and fourthly when the Church is assembled the Prayers which they teach the People are limited and prescribed forms it follows that limited and prescribed forms are in all reason emanations from the greatest portion of the Spirit warranted by special promises which are made to every man there present that does his duty as a private Member of the Christian Church and are due to him as a Ruler of the Church and yet more especially and in a further degree to all them met together where if ever the holy Spirit gives such helps and graces which relate to the publick government and have influence upon the communities of Christians that is will bless their meeting and give them such assistances as will enable them to do the work for which they convene Sect. 71. But yet if any man shall say what need the Church meet in publick Synods to make forms of Prayer when private Ministers are able to do it in their several Parishes I answer It is true Many can but they cannot do it better than a Councel and I think no man is so impudent as to say he can do it so well however quod spectat ad omnes ab omnibus tractari debet the matter is of publick concernment and therefore should be of publick consultation and the advantages of publickly describ'd forms I shall afterwards specifie In the mean time Sect. 72. FIFTHLY And the Church I mean the Rulers of the Church are appointed Presidents of Religious rites and as the Rulers in conjunction are enabled to do it best by the advantages of special promises and double portions of the Spirit so she always did practise this either in conjunction or by single dictate by publick persons or united authority but in all times as necessity required they prescribed set Forms of Prayer Sect. 73. IF I should descend to minutes and particulars I could instance in the behalf of set Forms that First God prescribed to Moses a set Form of Prayer and benediction to be used when he did bless the people Secondly That Moses composed a Song or Hymn for the children of Israel to use to all their generations Thirdly that David composed many for the service of the Tabernacle and every company of singers was tyed to certain Psalms as the very titles intimate and the Psalms were such limited and determinate prescriptions that in some Gods Spirit did dind them to the very number of the Letters and order of the Alphabet Fourthly That Solomon and the holy Kings of Judah brought them in and continued them in the ministration of the Temple Fifthly That in the reformation by Hezekiah the Priests and Levites were commanded to praise the Lord in the words of David and Asaph Sixthly That all Scripture is written for our learning and since all these and many more set Forms of Prayer are left there upon record it is more than probable that they were left there for our use and devotion and certainly it is as lawful and as prudent to pray Scriptures as to read Scriptures and it were well if we would use our selves to the expression of Scripture and that the language of God were familiar to us that we spake the words of Canaan not the speech of Ashdod and time was when it was thought the greatest Ornament of a spiritual Person and Instrument of a Religious conversation but then the consequents would be that these Prayers were the best Forms which were in the words of Scripture and those Psalms and Prayers there recorded were the best devotions but these are set Forms * 7. To this purpose I could instance in the example of Saint John Baptist who taught his Disciples a form of prayer and that Christ's Disciples begged the same favour and it was granted as they desired it Sect. 74. AND here I mean to fix a little for this ground cannot fail us I say Christ prescribed a set Form of Prayer to be used by all his Disciples as a Breviary of Prayer as a rule of their devotions as a repository of their needs and as a direct address to God For in this Prayer God did not only command us to make our Prayers as Moses was bid to make the Tabernacle after the pattern which God shewed him in the Mount and Christ shewed his Apostles but he hath given us the very Tables written with his own hand that we should use them as they are so delivered this Prayer was not only a precedent and pattern but an instance of address a perfect form for our practice as well as imitation For Sect. 75. FIRST When Christ was upon the Mount he gave it for a pattern 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So pray ye or after this manner which if we expound only to the sence of becoming a pattern or a Directory it is observable that it is not only directory for the matter but for the manner too and if we must pray with that matter and in that manner what does that differ from praying with that form however it is well enough that it becomes a precedent to us in any sence and the Church may vary her forms according as she judges best for edification Sect. 76. SECONDLY When the Apostles upon occasion of the Form which the Baptist taught his Disciples begged of their Master to teach them one he again taught them this and added a precept to use these very words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when ye pray say Our Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they spake to God it was fit they should speak in his words in whose Name also their prayers only could be acceptable Sect. 77. THIRDLY For if we must speak this sence why also are not the very words to be retained Is there any error or imperfection in the words Was not Christ Master of his language And were not his words sufficiently expressive of his sence Will not the Prayer do well also in our tongues which as a duty we are obliged to deposite in our hearts and preserve in our memories without which it is in all sences useless whether it be only a pattern or a repository of matter Sect. 78. FOURTHLY And it is observable that our blessed Saviour doth not say Pray that the Name of your heavenly Father may be sanctified or that your sins may be forgiven but say Hallowed be thy name c. so that he prescribes this Prayer not in massa materiae by in forma verborum not in a confused heap of matter but in an exact composure of words it makes it evident he intended it not only pro regula petendorum for a direction of what things we are to ask but also pro forma orationis for a
set form of Prayer Now it is considerable that no man ever had the fulness of the Spirit but only the Holy Jesus and therefore it is also certain that no man had the Spirit of prayer like to him and then if we pray this prayer devoutly and with pious and actual intention do we not pray in the Spirit of Christ as much as if we prayed any other form of words pretended to be taught us by the Spirit We are sure that Christ and Christs Spirit taught us this Prayer they only gather by conjectures and opinions that in their ex tempore or conceived forms the Spirit of Christ teacheth them So much then as Certainties are better than uncertainties and God's Word better than Man's so much is this set Form besides the infinite advantages in the matter better than their ex tempore and conceived Forms in the form it self And if ever any Prayer was or could be a part of that Doctrine of Faith by which we received the Spirit it must needs be this Prayer which was the only form our blessed Master taught the Christian Church immediately was a part of his great and glorious Sermon in the Mount in which all the needs of the world are sealed up as in a treasure house and intimated by several petitions as diseases are by their proper and proportioned remedies and which Christ published as the first emanation of his Spirit the first perfume of that heavenly anointing which descended on his sacred Head when he went down into the waters of Baptism Sect. 79. THIS we are certain of that there is nothing wanting nothing superfluous and impertinent nothing carnal or imperfect in this Prayer but as it supplies all needs so it serves all persons is fitted for all estates it meets with all accidents and no necessity can surprize any man but if God hears him praying that Prayer he is provided for in that necessity and yet if any single person paraphrases it it is not certain but the whole sence of a petition may be altered by the intervention of one improper word and there can be no security given against this but qualified and limited and just in such a proportion as we can be assured of the wisdom and honesty of the person and the actual assistance of the holy Spirit Sect. 80. NOW then I demand whether the Prayer of Manasses be so good a Prayer as the Lords Prayer or is the Prayer of Judith or of Tobias or of Judas Macchabeus or of the Son of Sirach is any of these so good Certainly no man will say they are and the reason is because we are not sure they are inspired by the Holy Spirit of God prudent and pious and conformable to Religion they may be but not penn'd by so excellent a spirit as this Prayer And what assurance can be given that any Ministers prayer is better than the prayers of the Son of Sirach who was a very wise and a very good man as all the world acknowledges I know not any one of them that has so large a testimony or is of so great reputation But suppose they can make as good prayers yet surely they are Apocryphal at least and for the same reason that the Apocryphal prayers are not so excellent as the Lords prayer by the same reason must the best they can be imagin'd to compose fall short of this excellent pattern by how much they partake of a smaller portion of the Spirit as a drop of water is less than all the waters under or above the Firmament Sect. 81. SECONDLY I would also willingly know whether if any man uses the form which Christ taught supposing he did not tie us to the very prescript words can there be any hurt in it Is it imaginable that any Commandment should be broken or any affront done to the honour of God or any act of imprudence or irreligion in it or any negligence of any insinuation of the Divine pleasure I cannot yet think of any thing to frame for answer so much as by way of an Antinomy or Objection But then supposing Christ did tie us to use this Prayer pro loco tempore according to the nature and obligation of all affirmative precepts as it is certain he did in the preceptive words recorded by St. Luke When ye pray say Our Father then it is to be considered that a Divine Commandment is broken by its rejection and therefore if there were any doubt remaining whether it be a Command or no yet since on one side there is danger of a negligence and a contempt and that on the other side the observation and conformity cannot be criminal or imprudent it will follow that the retaining of this Prayer in practice and suffering it to do all its intentions and particularly becoming the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or authority for set Forms of prayer is the safest most prudent most Christian understanding of those words of Christ propounding the Lords Prayer to the Christian Church And because it is impossible that all particulars should be expressed in any form of prayer because particulars are not only casual and accidental but also infinite Christ according to that wisdom he had without measure fram'd a Prayer which by a general comprehension should include all particulars eminently and virtually so that there should be no defect in it and yet so short that the most imperfect memories might retain and use it Sect. 82. AND it is not amiss to observe that our blessed Saviour first taught this Prayer to be as a remedy and a reproof of the vain repetition of the Pharisees and besides that it was so à priori we also in the event see the excellent spirit and wisdom in the Constitution for those persons who have laid aside the Lords Prayer have been noted by common observation to be very long in their forms and troublesome and vain enough in their repetitions they have laid aside the medicine and the old wound bleeds afresh the Pharisees did so of old Sect. 83. AND after all this it is strange imployment that any man should be put to justifie the wisdom and prudence of any of Christs institutions as if any of his servants who are wise upon his Stock instructed by his Wisdom made knowing by his Revelations and whose all that is good is but a weak ray of the glorious light of the Sun of Righteousness should dare to think that the Derivative should be before the Primitive the Current above the Fountain and that we should derive all our excellency from him and yet have some beyond him that is some which he never had or which he was not pleased to manifest or that we should have a spirit of Prayer able to make productions beyond his Prayer who received the Spirit without measure But this is not the first time man hath disputed against God Sect. 84. AND now let us consider with sobriety not only of this excellent Prayer but of
all that are deposited in the primitive records of our Religion Are not those Prayers and Hymns in holy Scripture excellent compositions admirable instruments of devotion full of piety rare and incomparable addresses to God Dare any man with his gift of Prayer pretend that he can ex tempore or by study make better Who dares pretend that he hath a better spirit than David had or than the Apostles and Prophets and other holy persons in Scripture whose Prayers and Psalms are by Gods Spirit consigned to the use of the Church for ever Or will it be denied but that they also are excellent Directories and Patterns for prayer And if Patterns the nearer we draw to our example are not the imitations and representments the better And what then if we took the Samplers themselves Is there any imperfection in them and can we mend them and correct the Magnificat The very matter of these and the Author no less than Divine cannot but justifie the Forms though set determin'd and prescribed Sect. 85. IN a just proportion and commensuration I argue so concerning the primitive and ancient forms of Church-service which are composed according to those so excellent Patterns which if they had remained pure as in the first institution or had always been as they had been reformed by the Church of England they would against all defiance put in for the next place to those forms of Liturgy which mutatis mutandis are nothing but the words of Scripture But I am resolved at this present not to enter into Question concerning the matter of Prayers Sect. 86. NEXT we must enquire what the Apostles did in obedience to the precept of Christ and what the Church did in imitation of the Apostles That the Apostles did use the Prayer their Lord taught them I think need not much be questioned they could have no other end of their desire and it had been a strange boldness to ask for a form which they intended not to use or a strange levity not to do what they intended But I consider they had a double capacity they were of the Jewish Religion by education and now Christians by a new institution in the first capacity they used those Set forms of Prayer which their Nation used in their devotions Christ and his Apostles sang a Hymn part of the great Allelujah which was usually sung at the end of the Paschal Supper After the Supper they sang a Hymn sayes the Evangelist The Jews also used every Sabbath to sing the XCII Psalm which is therefore intitled A Song or Psalm for the Sabbath and they who observed the hours of Prayer and Vows according to the rites of the Temple need not be suspected to have omitted the Jewish forms of prayer And as they complied with the religious customes of the Nation worshipping according to the Jewish manner it is also in reason to be presumed they were Worshippers according to the new Christian institution and used that form their Lord taught them Sect. 87. NOW that they tyed themselves to recitation of the very words of Christs Prayer pro loco tempore I am therefore easie to believe because I find they were strict to a scruple in retaining the Sacramental words which Christ spake when he instituted the blessed Sacrament insomuch that not only three Evangelists but Saint Paul also not only making a narrative of the institution but teaching the Corinthians the manner of its celebration to a tittle he recites the words of Christ. Now the action of the Consecrator is not a theatrical representment of the action of Christ but a sacred solemn and Sacramental prayer in which since the Apostles at first and the Church ever after did with reverence and fear retain the very words it is not only a probation of the Question in general in behalf of set forms but also a high probability that they retained the Lords Prayer and used it to an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the very form of words Sect. 88. AND I the rather make this inference from the preceding argument because of the cognation one hath with the other for the Apostles did also in the consecration of the Eucharist use the Lords Prayer and that together with the words of institution was the only form of consecration saith Saint Gregory and Saint Hierome affirms that the Apostles by the command of their Lord used this prayer in the benediction of the Elements Sect. 89. BUT besides this when the Apostles had received great measures of the Spirit and by their gift of Prayer composed more Forms for the help and comfort of the Church and contrary to the order in the first Creation the light which was in the body of the Sun was now diffused over the face of the new heavens and the new Earth it became a precept Evangelical that we should praise God in Hymns and Psalms and Spiritual Songs which is so certain that they were compositions of industry and deliberation and yet were sung in the Spirit that he who denies the last speaks against Scriptures he who denies the first speaks against Reason and would best confute himself if in the highest of his pretence of the Spirit he would venture at some ex tempore Hymns And of this we have the express testimony of St. Austin de Hymnis Psalmis canendis haberi Domini Apostolorum documenta utilia praecepta And the Church obeyed them for as an Ancient Author under the name of Diâ—nysius Areopagita relates the chief of the Clerical and Ministring Order offer bread upon the altar Cum Ecclesiastici omnes laudem hymnumque generalem Deo tribuerunt cum quibus Pontifex sacras preces ritè perficit c. They all sing one Hymn to God and the Bishop prays ritè according to the ritual or constitution which in no sence of the Church or of Grammar can be understood without a solemn and determined form 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Casaubon is cantare idem saepiùs dicere apud Graecos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were forms of praising God used constantly periodically and in the daily Offices And the Fathers of the Councel of Antioch complain against Paulus Samosatenus Quod Psalmos cantus qui ad domini nostri Jesu Christi honorem decantari solent tanquam recentiores à viris recentioris memoriae editos exploserit The quarrel was that he said the Church had used to say Hymns which were made by new men and not deriv'd from the Ancients which if we consider that the Councel of Antioch was in the twelfth year of Galienus the Emperour 133 years after Christs Ascension will fairly prove that the use of prescribed Forms of prayer Hymns and forms of Worshipping were very early in the Church and it is unimaginable it should be otherwise when we remember the Apostolical precept before mentioned And if we fancy a higher precedent than what was manifested upon earth we
man the Spirit will make intercession for him with those unutterable groans Besides this every Family hath needs proper to it in the capacity of a Family and those are to be represented by the master of the Family whom men of the other perswasion are apt to confess to be a Priest in his own Family and a King and Sacrorum omnium potestas sub Regibus esto they are willing in this sence to acknowledge and they call upon him to perform Family duties that is all the publick devotions of the Family are to be ordered by him Sect. 98. NOW that this is to be done by a set form of words is acknowledged by Didoclavius Nam licèt in conclavi Pater Familiâs verbis exprimere animi affectus pro arbitrio potest quia Dominus cor intuetur affectus tamen publicè coram totâ familiâ idem absque indecoro non potest If he prays ex tempore without a set form of prayer he may commit many an undecency a set and described form of prayer is most convenient in a Family that Children and Servants may be enabled to remember and tacitely recite the prayer together with the Major domo But I rely not upon this but proceed upon this consideration Sect. 99. AS private Persons and as Families so also have Churches their special necessities in a distinct capacity and therefore God hath provided for them Rulers and Feeders Priests and Presidents of Religion who are to represent all their needs to God and to make provisions Now because the Church cannot all meet in one place but the harvest being great it is bound up in several bundles and divided into many Congregations for all which the Rulers and Stewards of this great Family are to provide and yet cannot be present in those particular societies it is necessary that they should have influence upon them by a general provision and therefore that they should take care that their common needs should be represented to God by set forms of Prayer for they only can be provided by Rulers and used by their Mininisters and Deputies such as must be one in the principe and diffused in the execution and it is a better expression of their care and duty for the Rulers to provide the bread and bless it and then give it to them who must minister it in small portions and to particular companies for so Christ did than to leave them who are not in the same degree answerable for the Churches as the Rulers are to provide their food and break it and minister it too The very Oeconomy of Christs Family requires that the dispensations be made according to every mans capacity The general Stewards are to divide to every man his portion of work and to give them their food in due season and the under-servants are to do that work is appointed them so Christ appointed it in the Gospel and so the Church hath practised in all Ages indè enim per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia supra Episcopos constituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur when the Rulers are few for the Ecclesiastical regiment is not Democratical and the under offices many and the companies numerous for all which those few Rulers are bound to provide and prayer and offices of devotion are one of the greatest instances of provision it is impossible there should be any sufficient care taken or caution used by those Rulers in the matter of prayers but for them to make such prescript forms which may be used by all companies under their charge that since they are to represent all the needs of all their people because they cannot be present by their persons in all Societies they may be present by their care and provisions which is then done best when they make prescript Forms of prayer and provide pious Ministers to dispense it Sect. 100. SECONDLY It is in the very nature of publik prayer that it be made by a publick spirit and performed by a publick consent For publick and private prayer are certainly two distinct duties but they are least of all distinguished by the place but most of all by the spirit that dictates the prayer and the consent in the recitation and it is a private prayer which either one man makes though spoken in publick as the Laodicean Councel calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 private Psalms or which is not attested by publick consent of minds and it is a publick prayer which is made by the publick spirit and consented to by a general acceptation and therefore the Lords prayer though spoke in private is a publick form and therefore represented plurally and the place is very extrinsecal to the nature of Prayer I will that men pray every where lifting up pure hands and retiring into a closet is only advised for the avoiding of hypocrisie not for the greater excellency of the duty So that if publick Prayer have advantages beyond private Prayer or upon its own stock besides it the more publick influences it receives the more excellent it is And hence I conclude that set forms of Prayer composed and used by the Church I mean by the Rulers in conjunction and Union of Heads and Councels and used by the Church I mean the people in Union and society of Hearts and Spirits hath two very great advantages which other Prayers have not Sect. 101. FOR First it is more truly publick and hath the benefit of those helps which God who never is deficient to supply any of our needs gives to publick persons in order to publick necessities by which I mean its emanation from a publick and therefore a more excellent spirit And secondly it is the greatest instance of union in the world for since God hath made faith hope and charity the ligaments of the communion of Saints and Common Prayer which not only all the Governours have propounded as most fit but in which all the people are united is a great testimony of the same Faith and a common hope and mutual charity because they confess the same God whom they worship and the same Articles which they recite and labour towards the same hope the mighty price of their high calling and by praying for each other in the same sence and to the same purpose doing the same to them that I desire they should do for me do testifie and preserve and increase their charity it follows that common and described prayers are the most excellent instrument and act and ligament of the Communion of Saints and the great common term of the Church in its degrees of Catholick capacity And therefore saith S. Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All meet together and joyn to Common Prayers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let there be one mind and let there be one prayer That 's the true Communion of Christians Sect. 102. AND in pursuance of this I consider that
expolit dicendi necessitas secundos impetus auget placendi cupido Adeò praemium omnia spectant ut eloquentia quoque quanquam plurimum habeat in se voluptatis maximè tamen praesenti fructu laudis opinionisque ducatur It may so happen that the opinion of the people as it is apt to actuate the faculty so also may encourage the practice and spoil the devotion But these things are accidental to the nature of the thing and therefore though they are too certainly consequent to the person yet I will not be too severe but preserve my self on the surer side of a charitable construction which truly I desire to keep not only to their persons whom I much reverence but also to their actions But yet I durst not do the same thing even for these last reasons though I had no other Sect. 115. IN the next place we must consider the next great objection that is with much clamor pretended viz. that in set Forms of Prayer we restrain and confine the blessed Spirit and in conceived Forms when every man is left to his liberty then the Spirit is free unlimited and unconstrained Sect. 116. I ANSWER Either their conceived forms I use their own words though indeed the expression is very inartificial are premeditate and described or they are ex tempore If they be premeditate and described then the Spirit is as much limited in their conceived forms as in the Churches conceived Forms For as to this particular it is all one who describes and limits the Form whether the Church or a single man does it still the Spirit is in constraint and limit So that in this case they are not angry at set Forms of Prayer but that they do not make them And if it be replyed that if a single person composes a set Form he may alter it if he please and so his Spirit is at liberty I answer so may the Church if She see cause for it and unless there be cause the single person will not alter it unless he do things unreasonable and without cause So that it will be an unequal challenge and a peevish quarrel to allow of set Forms of Prayer made by private Persons and not of set Forms made by the publick spirit of the Church It is evident that the Spirit is limited in both alike Sect. 117. BUT if by conceived Forms in this Objection they mean ex tempore Prayers for so they would be thought most generally to practise it and that in the use of these the liberty of the spirit is best preserved To this I answer that the being ex tempore or premediate will be wholly impertinent to this Question of limiting the spirit For there may be great liberty in set forms even when there is much variety and there may be great restraint in ex tempore Prayers even then when it shall be called unlawful to use set forms That the spirit is restrained or that it is free in either is accidental to them both for it may be either free or not free in both as it may happen Sect. 118. BUT the restraint is this that every one is not left to his liberty to pray how he list with premeditation or without it makes not much matter but that he is prescribed unto by the spirit of another But if it be a fault thus to restrain the Spirit I would fain know is not the Spirit restrained when the whole Congregation shall be confined to the form of this one mans composing Or shall it be unlawful or at least a disgrace and disparagement to use any set Forms especially of the Churches composition More plainly thus Sect. 119. SECONDLY Doth not the Minister confine and restrain the spirit of the Lords People when they are tied to his Form It would sound of more liberty to their spirits that every one might make a prayer of his own and all pray together and not be forced or confined to the Ministers single dictate and private spirit It is true it would breed confusions and therefore they might pray silently till the Sermon began and not for the avoiding one inconvenience run into a greater and to avoid the disorder of a popular noise restrain the blessed Spirit for even in this case as well as in the other where the Spirit of God is there must be liberty Sect. 120. THIRDLY If the spirit must be at liberty who shall assure us this liberty must be in Forms of Prayer And if so whether also it must be in publick Prayer and will it not suffice that it be in private and if in publick Prayers is not the liberty of the spirit sufficiently preserved that the publick Spirit is free That is the Church hath power upon occasion to alter and increase her Litanies By what argument shall any man make it so much as probable that the Holy Ghost is injured if every private Ministers private spirit shall be guided and therefore by necessary consequence limited by the authority of the Churches publick Spirit Sect. 121. FOURTHLY Does not the Directory that thing which is here called restraining of the Spirit Does it not appoint every thing but the words And after this is it not a goodly Palladium that is contended for and a princely liberty they leave unto the Spirit to be free only in the supplying the place of a Vocabulary and a Copia verborum For as for the matter it is all there described and appointed and to those determined sences the Spirit must assist or not at all only for the words he shall take his choice Now I desire it may be considered sadly and seriously Is it not as much injury to the Spirit to restrain his matter as to appoint his words Which is the more considerable of the two Sence or Language Matter or Words I mean when they are taken singly and separately For so they may very well be for as if men prescribe the matter only the Spirit may cover it with several words and expressions so if the Spirit prescribe the words I may still abound in variety of sence and preserve the liberty of my meaning we see that true in the various interpretations of the same words of Scripture So that in the greater of the two the Spirit is restrained when his matter is appointed and to make him amends for not trusting him with the matter without our directions and limitations we trust him to say what he pleases so it be to our sence to our purposes A goodly compensation surely Sect. 122. FIFTHLY Did not Christ restrain the spirit of his Apostles when he taught them to pray the Lords Prayer whether his precept to his Disciples concerning it was Pray this or Pray thus Pray these words or Pray after this manner Or though it had been less than either and been only a Directory for the matter still it is a thing which our brethren in all other cases of the same nature are resolved perpetually to call a
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those are the next words fulfil thy Deaconship And therefore he was no Bishop As well this as the other for if Deaconship do not exclude Episcopacy why shall his being an Evangelist exclude it Or why may not his being a Deacon exclude his being an Evangelist as well as his being an Evangelist exclude his being a Bishop Whether is higher a Bishoprick or the office of an Evangelist If a Bishops office be higher and therefore cannot consist with an Evangelist then a Bishop cannot be a Priest and a Priest cannot be a Deacon and an Evangelist can be neither for that also is thought to be higher than them both But if the office of an Evangelist be higher then as long as they are not disparate much less destructive of each other they may have leave to consist in subordination For as for the pretence that an Evangelist is an office of a moveable imployment and a Bishoprick of fixt residence that will be considered by and by 2. All the former discourse is upon supposition that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies the office of a Deacon and so it may as well as S. Paul's other phrase implies S. Timothy to be an Evangelist For if we mark it well it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do the work not the office of an Evangelist And what 's that We may see it in the verses immediately going before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if this be the work of an Evangelist which S. Paul would have Timothy perform viz. to preach to be instant in season and out of season to reprove to rebuke to exhort there is no harm done a Bishop may nay he must do all this 3. Consider what an Evangelist is and thence take our estimate for the present 1. He that writes the story of the Gospel is an Evangelist so the Greek Scholiast calls him And in this sence indeed S. Timothy was not an Evangelist but yet if he had he might have been a Bishop because S. Mark was an Evangelist to be sure and perhaps as sure that he was a Bishop sure enough for they are both delivered to us by the Catholick testimony of the Primitive Church as we shall see hereafter so far as concerns our Question But then again an Apostle might be an Evangelist S. Matthew was S. John was and the Apostolical dignity is as much inconsistent with the office of an Evangelist as Episcopal preheminence for I have proved these two names Apostle and Bishop to signifie all one thing Secondly S. Ambrose gives another exposition of Evangelists Evangelistae Diaconi sunt sicut fuit Philippus S. Philip was one of the seven commonly called Deacons and he was also a Presbyter and yet an Evangelist and yet a Presbyter in its proportion is an office of as necessary residence as a Bishop or else why are Presbyters cri'd out against so bitterly in all cases for non-residence and yet nothing hinders but that S. Timothy as well as S. Philip might have been a Presbyter and an Evangelist together and then why not a Bishop too for why should a Deaconship or a Presbyterate consist with the office of an Evangelist more than a Bishoprick Thirdly Another acceptation of Evangelist is also in Eusebius Sed alii plurimi per idem tempus Apostolorum Discipuli superstites erant Nonnulli ex his ardentiores Divinae Philosophiae animas suas verbo Dei consecrabant ut si quibus fortè provinciis nomen fidei esset incognitum praedicarent primaque apud eos Evangelii fundamenta collocantes Evangelistarum fungebantur officio They that planted the Gospel first in any Country they were Evangelists S. Timothy might b◠such a one and yet be a Bishop afterwards And so were some of this sort of Evangelists For so Eusebius Primaque apud eos fundamenta Evangelii collocantes atque electis quibusque ex ipsis officium regendae Ecclesiae quam fundaverant committentes ipsi rursùm ad alias gentes properabant So that they first converted the Nation and then governed the Church first they were Evangelists and afterwards Bishops and so was Austin the Monk that converted England in the time of S. Gregory and Ethelbert he was first our Evangelist and afterwards Bishop of Dover Nay why may they not in this sence be both Evangelists and Bishops at the same time insomuch as many Bishops have first planted Christianity in divers Countries as S. Chrysostome in Scythia S. Trophimus S. Denis S. Mark and many more By the way only according to all these acceptations of the word Evangelist this office does not imply a perpetual motion Evangelists many of them did travel but they were never the more Evangelists for that but only their office was writing or preaching the Gospel and thence they had their name 4. The office of an Evangelist was but temporary and take it in either of the two sences of Eusebius or Oecumenius which are the only true and genuine was to expire when Christianity was planted every where and the office of Episcopacy if it was at all was to be succeeded in and therefore in no respect could these be inconsistent at least not always And how S. Paul should intend that Timothy should keep those rules he gave him to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ if the office for the execution of which he gave him the rules was to expire long before is not so easily imagined For if S. Paul did direct him in a temporary and expiring office then in no sence neither in person nor in succession could those rules of S. Paul be kept till Christ's coming to wit to judgment But if he instructed him in the perpetual office of Episcopacy then it is easie to understand that S. Paul gave that caution to Timothy to intimate that those his directions were not personal but for his successors in that charge to which he had ordained him viz. in the sacred order and office of Episcopacy 5. Lastly After all this stir there are some of the Fathers that will by no means admit S. Timothy to have been an Evangelist So S. Chrysostom so Theophylact so the Greek Scholiast Now though we have no need to make any use of it yet if it be true it makes all this discourse needless we were safe enough without it if it be false then it self we see is needless for the allegation of S. Timothies being an Evangelist is absolutely impertinent though it had been true But now I proceed SECT XV. S. Titus at Crete TITVS was also made a Bishop by the Apostles S. Paul also was his ordainer First Reliqui te Cretae There S. Paul fixt his seat for him at Crete Secondly His work was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set in order things that are wanting viz. to constitute rites and forms of publick Liturgy to erect a Consistory for cognizance of causes criminal to dedicate houses for prayer by publick
destination for divine service and in a word by his authority to establish such Discipline and Rituals as himself did judge to be most for edification and ornament of the Church of God For he that was appointed by S. Paul to rectifie and set things in order was most certainly by him supposed to be the Judge of all the obliquities which he was to rectifie 2. The next work is Episcopal too and it is the ordaining Presbyters in every City Not Presbyters collectively in every City but distributively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 City by City that is Elders in several Cities one in one City many in many For by these Elders are certainly meant Bishops Of the identity of Names I shall afterwards give an account but here it is plain S. Paul expounds himself to mean Bishops 1. In terms and express words To ordain Elders in every City If any be the husband of one wife c. For a Bishop must be blameless That is the Elders that you are to ordain in several cities must be blameless for else they must not be Bishops 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot hinder this exposition for S. Peter calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. John Presbyter electae Dominae and Presbyter delectissimo Gaio Such Presbyters as these were Apostolical and that 's as much as Episcopal to be sure 3. S. Paul adds farther a Bishop must be blameless as the steward of God Who then is that faithful and wise steward whom his Lord shall make ruler S. Paul's Bishop is Gods steward and Gods steward is the ruler of his houshold says our blessed Saviour himself and therefore not a meer Presbyter amongst whom indeed there is a parity but no superintendency of Gods making 4. S. Paul does in the sequel still qualifie his Elders or Bishops with more proprieties of rulers A Bishop must be no striker not given to wine They are exactly the requisites which our blessed Saviour exacts in his Stewards or Rulers accounts If the Steward of the house will drink and be drunk and beat his fellow servants then the Lord of that servant shall come and divide him his portion with unbelievers The steward of the houshold this Ruler must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more must a Bishop he must not be given to wine no striker Neque enim pugilem describit sermo Apostolicus sed Pontificem instituit quid facere non debeat saith S. Hierome still then these are the Rulers of the Church which S. Titus was to ordain and therefore it is required should Rule well his own house for how else shall he take charge of the Church of God implying that this his charge is to rule the house of God 5. The reason why S. Paul appointed him to ordain these Bishops in cities is in order to coercive jurisdiction because many unruly and vain talkers were crept in verse 10. and they were to be silenced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their mouths must be stopped Therefore they must be such Elders as had superiority of jurisdiction over these impertinent Preachers which to a single Presbyter either by Divine or Apostolical institution no man will grant and to a Colledge of Presbyters S. Paul does not intend it for himself had given it singly to S. Titus For I consider Titus alone had coercive Jurisdiction before he ordained these Elders be they Bishops be they Presbyters The Presbyters which were at Crete before his coming had not Episcopal power or coercive Jurisdiction for why then was Titus sent As for the Presbyters which Titus ordained before his ordaining them to be sure they had no power at all they were not Presbyters If they had a coercive Jurisdiction afterwards to wit by their ordination then Titus had it before in his own person for they that were there before his coming had not as I shewed and therefore he must also have it still for he could not lose it by ordaining others or if he had it not before how could he give it unto them whom he ordained For plus juris in alium tranferre nemo potest quam ipse habet Howsoever it be then to be sure Titus had it in his own person and then it follows undeniably that either this coercive Jurisdiction was not necessary for the Church which would be either to suppose men impeccable or the Church to be exposed to all the inconveniences of Schism and tumultuary factions without possibility of relief or if it was necessary then because it was in Titus not as a personal prerogative but a power to be succeeded to he might ordain others he had authority to do it with the same power he had himself and therefore since he alone had this coercion in his own person so should his successors and then because a single Presbyter could not have it over his brethren by the confession of all sides nor the Colledge of Presbyters which were there before his coming had it not for why then was Titus sent with a new commission nor those which he was to ordain if they were but meer Presbyters could not have it no more than the Presbyters that were there before his coming it follows that those Elders which S. Paul sent Titus to ordain being such as were to be constituted in opposition and power over the false Doctors and prating Preachers and with authority to silence them as is evident in the first Chapter of that Epistle these Elders I say are verily and indeed such as himself calls Bishops in the proper sence and acceptation of the word 6. The Cretan Presbyters who were there before S. Titus's coming had not power to ordain others that is had not that power that Titus had For Titus was sent thither for that purpose therefore to supply the want of that power And now because to ordain others was necessary for the conservation and succession of the Church that is because new generations are necessary for the continuing the world and meer Presbyters could not do it and yet this must be done not only by Titus himself but after him it follows undeniably that S. Paul sent Titus to ordain men with the same power that himself had that is with more than his first Cretan Presbyters that is Bishops and he means them in the proper sence 7. That by Elders in several Cities he means Bishops is also plain from the place where they were to be ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In populous Cities not in village Towns For no Bishops were ever suffered to be in village Towns as is to be seen in the Councils of Sardis of Chalcedon and S. Leo the Cities therefore do at least highly intimate that the persons to be ordained were not meer Presbyters The issue of this discourse is That since Titus was sent to Crete to ordain Bishops himself was a Bishop to be
concurrence of Jurisdiction this must be considered distinctly 1. Then In the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters and inferiour Ministers with a power of baptizing preaching consecrating and reconciling in privato foro but did not in every Church at the first founding it constitute a Bishop This is evident in Crete in Ephesus in Corinth at Rome at Antioch 2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their own hands There comes upon me saith S. Paul daily the care or supravision of all the Churches Not all absolutely for not all of the Circumcision but all of his charge with which he was once charged and of which he had not exonerated himself by constituting Bishops there for of these there is the same reason And again If any man obey not our word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie him to me by an Epistle so he charges the Thessalonians and therefore of this Church S. Paul as yet clearly kept the power in his own hands So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it governed by Episcopal or Apostolical authority 3. For ought appears in Scripture the Apostles never gave any external or coercitive jurisdiction in publick and criminal causes nor yet power to ordain Rites or Ceremonies or to inflict censures to a Colledge of meer Presbyters * The contrary may be greedily swallowed and I know not with how great confidence and prescribing prejudice but there is not in all Scripture any commission from Christ any ordinance or warrant from the Apostles to any Presbyter or Colledge of Presbyters without a Bishop or express delegation of Apostolical authority tanquam vicario suo as to his substitute in absence of the Bishop or Apostle to inflict any censures or take cognizance of persons and causes criminal Presbyters might be surrogati in locum Episcopi absentis but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by vertue of their ordination or any commission from Christ or his Apostles This we may best consider by induction of particulars 1. There was a Presbytery at Jerusalem but they had a Bishop always and the Colledge of the Apostles sometimes therefore whatsoever act they did it was in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishop and Apostles Now it cannot be denied both that the Apostles were superiour to all the Presbyters in Jerusalem and also had power alone to govern the Church I say they had power to govern alone for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordain'd the first Presbyters that is before there were any of capacity to joyn with them they must do it themselves and then also they must retain the same power for they could not lose it by giving Orders Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction then the Presbyters being in some publick acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Order they only assisting in subordination and by dependency This only by the way In Jerusalem the Presbyters were something more than ordinary and were not meer Presbyters in the present and limited sence of the word For Barnabas and Judas and Silas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Luke calls them were of that Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were Rulers and Prophets Chief men amongst the Brethren and yet called Elders or Presbyters though of Apostolical power and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius For truth is that divers of them were ordained Apostles with an Vnlimited jurisdiction not fixed upon any See that they also might together with the twelve exire in totum mundum * So that in this Presbytery either they were more than meer Presbyters as Barnabas and Judas and Silas men of Apostolical power and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve and with the Bishop they were of equal power not by vertue of their Presbyterate but by their Apostolate or if they were but meer Presbyters yet because it is certain and proved and confessed that the Apostles had power to govern the Church alone this their taking meer Presbyteros in partem regiminis was a voluntary act and from this example was derived to other Churches and then it is most true that Presbyteros in communi Ecclesiam regere was rather consuetudine Ecclesiae dominicae dispositionis veritate to use S. Hierom's own expression for this is more evident than that Bishops do eminere caeteris by custom rather than Divine institution For if the Apostles might rule the Church alone then that the Presbyters were taken into the Number was a voluntary act of the Apostles and although fitting to be retained where the same reasons do remain and circumstances concur yet not necessary because not affixed to their Order not Dominicae dispositionis veritate and not laudable when those reasons cease and there is an emergency of contrary causes 2. The next Presbytery we read of is at Antioch but there we find no acts either of concurrent or single jurisdiction but of ordination indeed we do and that performed by such men as S. Paul was and Barnabas for they were two of the Prophets reckoned in the Church of Antioch but I do not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place to be sure they were not meer Presbyters as we now Understand the word as I proved formerly 3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a Colledge of Presbyters and they were by the Spirit of God called Bishops and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God This must do it or nothing In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops There must lye the exigence of the argument and if we can find who is meant by vos we shall I hope gain the truth * S. Paul sent for the Presbyters or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus and to them he spoke ** It 's true but that 's not all the vos For there were present at that Sermon Sopater and Aristarchus and Secundus and Gaius and Timothy and Tychicus and Trophimus And although he sent to Ephesus as to the Metropolis and there many Elders were either accidentally or by ordinary residence yet those were not all Elders of that Church but of all Asia in the Scripture sence the lesser Asia For so in the Preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates Ye know that from the first day I came into Asia after what manner I have been with you at all seasons His whole conversation in Asia was not confined to Ephesus and yet those Elders who were present were witnesses of it all and therefore were of dispersed habitation and so it is more clearly inferred from verse 25. And now behold I know that ye all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God c. It was a travel to preach to all that were present and therefore
much exact in requiring the capacity of the person as the Number of the Ordainers But let them answer it For my part I believe that the imposition of hands by Andreas was no more in that case than if a lay-man had done it it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and though the ordination was absolutely Uncanonical yet it being in the exigence of Necessity and being done by two Bishops according to the Apostolical Canon it was valid in naturâ rei though not in forma Canonis and the addition of the Priest was but to cheat the Canon and cozen himself into an impertinent belief of a Canonical ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Council of Sardis Bishops must ordain Bishops It was never heard that Priests did or de jure might These premises do most certainly infer a real difference between Episcopacy and the Presbyterate But whether or no they infer a difference of order or only of degree or whether degree and order be all one or no is of great consideration in the present and in relation to many other Questions 1. Then it is evident that in Antiquity Ordo and Gradus were used promiscuously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Greek word and for it the Latins used Ordo as is evident in the instances above mentioned to which add that Anacletus says that Christ did instituere duos Ordines Episcoporum Sacerdotum And S. Leo affirâ—â— Primum ordinem esse Episcopalem secundum Presbyteralem tertium Leviticum And these among the Greeks are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three degrees So the order of Deaconship in S. Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. is a censure used alike in the censures of Bishops Priests and Deacons They are all of the same Name and the same consideration for order distance and degree amongst the Fathers Gradus and Ordo are equally affirmed of them all and the word Gradus is used sometimes for that which is called Ordo most frequently So Felix writing to S. Austin Non tantum ego possum contra tuam virtutem quia mira virtus est Gradus Episcopalis and S. Cyprian of Cornelius Ad Sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis Gradibus ascendit Degree and Order are used in common for he that speaks most properly will call that an Order in persons which corresponds to a degree in qualities and neither of the words are wronged by a mutual substitution 2. The promotion of a Bishop ad Munus Episcopale was at first called ordinatio Episcopi Stir up the Grace that is in thee juxta ordinationem tuam in Episcopatum saith Sedulius And S. Hierom prophetiae gratiam habebat cum Ordinatione Episcopatus Neque enim fas erat aut licebat ut inferior Ordinaret majorem saith S. Ambrose proving that Presbyters might not impose hands on a Bishop * Romanorum Ecclesia Clementem à Petro Ordinatum edit saith Tertulliâ—n and S. Hierome affirms that S. James was Ordained Bishop of Jerusalem immediately after the Passion of our Lord. Ordinatus was the the word at first and afterwards Consecratus came in conjunction with it when Moses the Monk was to be ordained to wit a Bishop for that 's the title of the story in Theodoret and spyed that Lucius was there ready to impose hands on him absit says he ut manus tua me Consecret 3. In all orders there is the impress of a distinct Character that is the person is qualified with a new capacity to do certain offices which before his ordination he had no power to do A Deacon hath an order or power Quo pocula vitae Misceat latices cum Sanguine porrigat agni as Arator himself a Deacon expresses it A Presbyter hath an higher order or degree in the office or ministery of the Church whereby he is enabled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Council of Ancyra does intimate But a Bishop hath a higher yet for besides all the offices communicated to Priests and Deacons he can give orders which very one thing makes Episcopacy to be a distinct order For Ordo is designed by the Schools to be traditio potestatis spiritualis Collatio gratiae ad obeunda Ministeria Ecclesiastica a giving a spiritual power and a conferring grace for the performance of Ecclesiastical Ministrations Since then Episcopacy hath a new ordination and a distinct power as I shall shew in the descent it must needs be a distinct order both according to the Name given it by antiquity and according to the nature of the thing in the definitions of the School There is nothing said against this but a fancy of some of the Church of Rome obtruded indeed upon no grounds for they would define order to be a special power in relation to the Holy Sacrament which they call corpus Christi naturale and Episcopacy indeed to be a distinct power in relation ad corpus Christi Mysticum or the regiment of the Church and ordaining labourers for the harvest and therefore not to be a distinct order But this to them that consider things sadly is true or false according as any man list For if these men are resolved they will call nothing an order but what is a power in order to the consecration of the Eucharist who can help it Then indeed in that sence Episcopacy is not a distinct order that is a Bishop hath no new power in the consecration of the Venerable Eucharist more than a Presbyter hath But then why these men should only call this power an order no man can give a reason For 1. in Antiquity the distinct power of a Bishop was ever called an Order and I think before Hugo de S. Victore and the Master of the Sentences no man ever denied it to be an order 2. According to this rate I would fain know the office of a Sub-deacon and of an Ostiary and of an Acolouthite and of a Reader come to be distinct Orders for surely the Bishop hath as much power in order to consecration de Novo as they have de integro And if I mistake not that the Bishop hath a new power to ordain Presbyters who shall have a power of consecrating the Eucharist is more a new power in order to consecration than all those inferior officers put together have in all and yet they call them Orders and therefore why not Episcopacy also I cannot imagine unless because they will not *** But however in the mean time the denying the office and degree of Episcopacy to be a new and a distinct order is an innovation of the production of some in the Church of Rome without all reason and against all Antiquity This only by the way The enemies of Episcopacy call in aid from all places for support of their ruinous cause and therefore take their main hopes from the Church of Rome by advantage of the former discourse
himself hath not can he give what himself hath not received * I end this point with the saying of Epiphanius Vox est Aerii haeretici Vnus est ordo Episcoporum Presbyterorum una dignitas To say that Bishops are not a distinct order from Presbyters was a heresy first broached by Aerius and hath lately been at least in the manner of speaking countenanced by many of the Church of Rome SECT XXXII For Bishops had a power distinct and Superiour to that of Presbyters As of Ordination FOR to clear the distinction of order it is evident in Antiquity that Bishops had a power of imposing hands for collating of orders which Presbyters have not * What was done in this affair in the times of the Apostles I have already explicated but now the inquiry is what the Church did in pursuance of the practice and tradition Apostolical The first and second Canons of Apostles command that two or three Bishops should ordain a Bishop and one Bishop should ordain a Priest and a Deacon A Presbyter is not authorized to ordain a Bishop is S. Dionysius affirms Sacerdotem non posse initiari nisi per invocationes Episcopales and acknowledges no ordainer but a Bishop No more did the Church ever Insomuch that when Novatus the Father of the old Puritans did ambire Episcopatum he was fain to go to the utmost parts of Italy and seduce or intreat some Bishops to impose hands on him as Cornelius witnesses in his Epistle to Fabianus in Eusebius To this we may add as so many witnesses all those ordinations made by the Bishops of Rome mentioned in the Pontifical book of Damasus Platina and others Habitis de more sacris ordinibus Decembris mense Presbyteros decem Diaconos duos c. creat S. Clemens Anacletus Presbyteros quinque Diaconos tres Episcopos diversis in locis sex numero creavit and so in descent for all the Bishops of that succession for many ages together But let us see how this power of ordination went in the Bishops hand alone by Law and Constitution for particular examples are infinite In the Council of Ancyra it is determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Rural Bishops shall not ordain Presbyters or Deacons in anothers Diocess without letters of license from the Bishop Neither shall the Priests of the City attempt it * First not Rural Bishops that is Bishops that are taken in adjutorium Episcopi Principalis Vicars to the Bishop of the Diocess they must not ordain Priests and Deacons For it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is anothers Diocess and to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is prohibited by the Canon of Scripture But then they may with license Yes for they had Episcopal Ordination at first but not Episcopal Jurisdiction and so were not to invade the territories of their neighbour The tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch clears this part The words are these as they are rendred by Dionysius Exiguus Qui in villis vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi tametsi manus impositionem ab Episcopis susceperunt ut Episcopi sunt consecrati tamen oportet eos modum proprium retinere c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the next clause ut Episcopi consecrati sunt although it be in very ancient Latine copies yet is not found in the Greek but is an assumentum for exposition of the Greek but is most certainly implyed in it for else what description could this be of Chorepiscopi above Presbyteri rurales to say that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so had countrey Priests they had received imposition of the Bishops hands Either then the Chorepiscopi had received ordination from three Bishops and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be taken collectively not distributively to wit that each Countrey Bishop had received ordination from Bishops many Bishops in conjunction and so they were very Bishops or else they had no more than village Priests and then this caution had been impertinent * But the City Priests were also included in this prohibition True it is but it is in a Parenthesis with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the midst of the Canon and there was some particular reason for the involving them not that they ever did actually ordain any but that since it was prohibited to the Chorepiscopi to ordain to them I say who though for want of jurisdiction they might not ordain without license it being in alienâ Parochiâ yet they had capacity by their order to do it if these should do it the City Presbyters who were often dispatched into the Villages upon the same imployment by a temporary mission that the Chorepiscopi were by an ordinary and fixt residence might perhaps think that their commission might extend farther than it did or that they might go beyond it as well as the Chorepiscopi and therefore their way was obstructed by this clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Add to this The Presbyters of the City were of great honour and peculiar priviledge as appears in the thirteenth Canon of the Council of Neo-Caesarea and therefore might easily exceed if the Canon had not been their bridle The sum of the Canon is this With the Bishops license the Chorepiscopi might ordain for themselves had Episcopal ordination but without license they might not for they had but delegate and subordinate jurisdiction And therefore in the fourteenth Canon of Neo-Caesarea are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like the 70 Disciples that is inferior to Bishops and the 70 were to the twelve Apostles viz. in hoc particulari not in order but like them in subordination and inferiority of jurisdiction but the City Presbyters might not ordain neither with nor without license for they are in the Canon only by way of parenthesis and the sequence of procuring a faculty from the Bishops to collate orders is to be referred to Chorepiscopi not to Presbyteri Civitatis unless we should strain this Canon into a sence contrary to the practice of the Catholick Church Res enim ordinis non possunt delegari is a most certain rule in Divinity and admitted by men of all sides and most different interests * However we see here that they were prohibited and we never find before this time that any of them actually did give orders neither by ordinary power nor extraordinary dispensation and the constant tradition of the Church and practice Apostolical is that they never could give orders therefore this exposition of the Canon is liable to no exception but is clear for the illegality of a Presbyter giving holy orders either to a Presbyter or a Deacon and is concluding for the necessity of concurrence both of Episcopal order and jurisdiction for ordinations for reddendo singula singulis and expounding this Canon according to the sence of the Church and exigence of Catholick custome the Chorepiscopi are excluded from giving orders for want of jurisdiction and the Priests of
Acta in the Scripture therefore by Gods Holy Spirit and the end he also specifies viz. for the honour of that sacred order non propter legis necessitatem not that there is any necessity of law that Confirmation should be administred by the Bishop Not that a Priest may do it but that as S. Hierome himself there argues the Holy Ghost being already given in baptism if it happens that Bishops may not be had for he puts the case concerning persons in bondage and places remote and destitute of Bishops then in that case there is not the absolute necessity of a Law that Confirmation should be had at all A man does not perish if he have it not for that this thing was reserved to a Bishops peculiar ministration was indeed an honour to the function but it was not for the necessity of a Law tying people in all cases actually to acquire it So that this non necessarium is not to be referred to the Bishops ministration as if it were not necessary for him to do it when it is to be done nor that a Priest may do it if a Bishop may not be had but this non-necessity is to be referred to Confirmation it self so that if a Bishop cannot be had Confirmation though with much loss yet with no danger may be omitted This is the summe of S. Hieroms discourse this reconciles him to himself this makes him speak conformably to his first assertions and consequently to his arguments and to be sure no exposition can make these words to intend that this reservation of the power of Confirmation to Bishops is not done by the spirit of God and then let the sence of the words be what they will they can do no hurt to the cause and as easily may we escape from those words of his to Rusticus Bishop of Narbona Sed quia scriptum est Presbyteri duplici honore honorentur praedicare eos decet utile est benedicere congruum confirmare c. It is quoted by Gratian dist 95. can ecce ego But the gloss upon the place expounds him thus i. e. in fide the Presbyters may preach they may confirm their Auditors not by consignation of Chrism but by confirmation of faith and for this quotes a parallel place for the use of the word Confirmare by authority of S. Gregory who sent Zachary his legate into Germany from the See of Rome Vt Orthodoxos Episcopos Presbyteros vel quoscunque reperir◠potuisset in verbo exhortationis perfectos ampliùs confirmaret Certainly S. Gregory did not intend that his legate Zachary should confirm Bishops and Priests in any other sence but this of S. Hierom's in the present to wit in faith and doctrine not in rite and mystery and neither could S. Hierome himself intend that Presbyters should do it at all but in this sence of S. Gregory for else he becomes an Antistrephon and his own opposite * Yea but there is a worse matter than this S. Ambrose tells of the Egyptian Priests that they in the absence of the Bishop do confirm Denique apud Egyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus But 1. The passage is suspicious for it interrupts a discourse of S. Ambrose's concerning the Primitive Order of election to the Bishoprick and is no way pertinent to the discourse but is incircled with a story of a far different consequence which is not easily thought to have been done by any considering and intelligent Author 2. But suppose the clause be not surreptitious but natural to the discourse and born with it yet it is matter of fact not of right for S. Ambrose neither approves nor disproves it and so it must go for a singular act against the Catholick practice and Laws of Christendom 3. If the whole clause be not surreptitious yet the word Consignant is for S. Austin who hath the same discourse the same thing viz. of the dignity of Presbyters tells this story of the Act and honour of Presbyters in Alexandria and all Egppt almost in the other words of his Master S. Ambrose but he tells it thus Nam in Alexandriâ per totum Egyptum si desit Episcopus Consecrat Presbyter So that it should not be consignat but consecrat for no story tells of any confirmations done in Egypt by Presbyters but of consecrating the Eucharist in cases of Episcopal absence or commission I shall give account in the Question of jurisdiction that that was indeed permitted in Egypt some other places but Confirmation never that we can find elsewhere and this is too improbable to bear weight against evidence and practice Apostolical and four Councils and sixteen ancient Catholick Fathers testifying that it was a practice and a Law of Christendom that Bishops only should confirm and not Priests so that if there be no other scruple this Question is quickly at an end ** But S. Gregory is also pretended in objection for he gave dispensation to the Priests of Sardinia ut baptizatos Vnguant to aneal baptized people Now anointing the forehead of the baptized person was one of the solemnities of Confirmation so that this indulgence does arise to a power of Confirming for Vnctio and Chrismatio in the first Arausican Council and since that time Sacramentum Chrismatis hath been the usual word for Confirmation But this will not much trouble the business Because it is evident that he means it not of Confirmation but of the Chrisme in those times by the rites of the Church us'd in baptism For in his ninth Epistle he forbids Priests to anoint baptized people now here is precept against precept therefore it must be understood of several anointings and so S. Gregory expounds himself in this ninth Epistle Presbyteri baptizatos infantes signare bis infronte Chrismate non praesumant Presbyters may not anoint baptized people twice once they might now that this permission of anointing was that which was a ceremony of baptism not an act of confirmation we shall see by comparing it with other Canons In the collection of the Oriental Canons by Martinus Bracarensis It is decreed thus Presbyter praesente Episcopo non Signet infantes nisi forte ab Episcopo fuerit illi praeceptum A Priest must not sign infants without leave of the Bishop if he be present Must not sign them that is with Chrisme in their foreheads and that in baptism for the circumstant Canons do expresly explicate and determine it for they are concerning the rites of baptism and this in the midst of them And by the way this may answer S. Ambrose his Presbyteri consignant absente Episcopo in case it be so to be read for here we see a consignation permitted to the Presbyters in the Eastern Churches to be used in baptism in the absence of the Bishop and this an act of indulgence and favour and therefore extraordinary and of use to S. Ambrose his purpose of advancing the Presbyters
mislikes for all such things are wicked and in enmity with God * But it seems Saint Ignatius was mightily in love with this precept for he gives it to almost all the Churches he writes to We have already reckoned the Trallians and the Magnesians But the same he gives to the Priests of Tarsus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye Presbyters be subject to your Bishop The same to the Philadelphians Sine Episcopo nihil facite Do nothing without your Bishop But this is better explicated in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna Sine Episcopo nemo quicquam faciat eorum quae ad Ecclesiam spectant No man may do any thing without the Bishop viz. of those things which belong to the Church So that this saying expounds all the rest for this universal obedience is to be understood according to the sence of the Church viz. to be in all things of Ecclesiastical cognizance all Church-affairs And therefore he gives a charge to S. Polycarp their Bishop that he also look to it that nothing be done without hiâ— leave Nihil sine tuo Arbitrio agatur nec item tu quicquam praeter Dei facies voluntatem As thou must do nothing against Gods will so let nothing in the Church be done without thine By the way observe he says not that as the Presbytery must do nothing without the Bishop so the Bishop nothing without them But so the Bishop nothing without God But so it is Nothing must be done without the Bishop And therefore although he incourages them that can to remain in Virginity yet this if it be either done with pride or without the Bishop it is spoiled For Si gloriatus fuerit periit si id ipsum statuatur sine Episcopo corruptum est His last dictate in this Epistle to S. Polycarp is with an Episcopo attendite sicut Deus vobis The way to have God to take care of us is to observe our Bishop Hinc vos decet accedere Sententiae Episcopi qui secundum Deum vos pascit quemadmodum facitis edocti à spiritu You must therefore câ—â—form to the sentence of the Bishop as indeed ye do already being taught so to do by Gods holy Spirit There needs no more to be said in this cause if the authority of so great a man will bear so great a burden What the man was I said before what these Epistles are and of what authority let it rest upon Vedelius a man who is no ways to be suspected as a party for Episcopacy or rather upon the credit of Eusebius S. Hierome and Ruffinus who reckon the first seven out of which I have taken these excerpta for natural and genuine And now I will make this use of it Those men that call for reduction of Episcopacy to the Primitive state should do well to stand close to their principles and count that the best Episcopacy which is first and then consider but what S. Ignatius hath told us for direction in this affair and see what is gotten in the bargain For my part since they that call for such a reduction hope to gain by it and then would most certainly have abidden by it I think it not reasonable to abate any thing of Ignatius his height but expect such subordination and conformity to the Bishop as he then knew to be a law of Christianity But let this be remembred all along in the specification of the parts of their Jurisdiction But as yet I am in the general demonstration of obedience The Council of Laodicea having specified some particular instances of subordination and dependance to the Bishop summs them up thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So likewise the Presbyters let them do nothing without the precept and counsel of the Bishop so is the translation of Isidore ad verbum This Council is ancient enough for it was before the first Nicene So also was that of Arles commanding the same thing exactly * Vt Presbyteri sine conscientiâ Episcoporum nihil faciant Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare vel sine authoritate literarum ejus in unaquaque parochiâ aliquid agere says the thirteenth Canon of the Ancyran Council according to the Latin of Isidore The same thing is in the first Council of Toledo the very same words for which I cited the first Council of Arles viz. That Presbyters do nothing without the knowledge or permission of the Bishop Esto subjectus Pontifici tuo quasi animae parentem suscipe It is the counsel of S. Hierome Be subject to thy Bishop and receive him as the Father of thy soul. I shall not need to derive hither any more particular instances of the duty and obedience owing from the Laity to the Bishop For this account will certainly be admitted by all considering men God hath intrusted the souls of the Laity to the care of the Ecclesiastical orders they therefore are to submit to the government of the Clergie in matters Spiritual with which they are intrusted For either there is no Government at all or the Laity must govern the Church or else the Clergie must To say there is no Government is to leave the Church in worse condition than a tyranny To say that the Laity should govern the Church when all Ecclesiastical Ministeries are committed to the Clergy is to say Scripture means not what it says for it is to say that the Clergy must be Praepositi and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Praelati and yet the prelation and presidency and rule is in them who are not ever by Gods spirit called Presidents or Prelates and that it is not in them who are so called * In the mean time if the Laity in matters Spiritual are inferiour to the Clergy and must in things pertaining to the Soul be ruled by them with whom their Souls are intrusted then also much rather they must obey those of the Clergy to whom all the other Clergy themselves are bound to be obedient Now since by the frequent precept of so many Councils and Fathers the Deacons and Presbyters must submit in all things to the Bishop much more must the Laity and since the Bishop must rule in chief and the Presbyters at the most can but rule in conjunction and assistance but ever in subordination to the Bishop the Laity must obey de integro For that is to keep them in that state in which God hath placed them But for the main S. Clement in his Epistle to S. James translated by Ruffinus saith it was the doctrine of Peter according to the institution of Christ That Presbyters should be obedient to their Bishop in all things and in his third Epistle That Presbyters and Deacons and others of the Clergie must take heed that they do nothing without the license of the Bishop * And to make this business up compleat all these authorites of
titles of honour be either unfit in themselves to be given to Bishops or what the guise of Christendome hath been in her spiritual heraldry 1. S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna gives them this command Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum imaginem Dei referentem Honour the Bishop as the image of God as the Prince of Priests Now since honour and excellency are terms of mutual relation and all excellency that is in men and things is but a ray of divine excellency so far as they participate of God so far they are honourable Since then the Bishop carries the impress of God upon his forehead and bears Gods image certainly this participation of such perfection makes him very honourable And since honor est in honorante it is not enough that the Bishop is honourable in himself but it tells us our duty we must honour him we must do him honour and of all the honours in the world that of words is the cheapest and the least S. Paul speaking of the honour due to the Prelates of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let them be accounted worthy of double honour And one of the honours that he there means is a costly one an honour of Maintenance the other must certainly be an honour of estimate and that 's cheapest The Council of Sardis speaking of the several steps and capacities of promotion to the height of Episcopacy uses this expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that shall be found worthy of so Divine a Priesthood let him be advanced to the highest honour Ego procidens ad pedes ejus rogabam excusans me declinans honorem cathedrae potestatem saith S. Clement when S. Peter would have advanced him to the Honour and power of the Bishops chair But in the third epistle speaking of the dignity of Aaron the High-Priest and then by analogy of the Bishop who although he be a Minister in the Order of Melchisedech yet he hath also the Honour of Aaron Omnis enim Pontisex sacro crismate perunctus in civitate constitutus in Scripturis sacris conditus charus preciosus hominibus oppidò esse debet Every High-Priest ordained in the City viz. a Bishop ought forthwith to be dear and precious in the eyes of men Quem quasi Christi locum tenentem honorare omnes debent eique servire obedientes ad salutem suam fideliter existere scientes quòd sive honor sive injuria quae ei defertur in Christum redundat à Christo in Deum The Bishop is Christs Vicegerent and therefore he is to be obeyed knowing that whether it be honour or injury that is done to the Bishop it is done to Christ and so to God * And indeed what is the saying of our blessed Saviour himself He that despiseth you despiseth me If Bishops be Gods Ministers and in higher order than the rest then although all discountenance and disgrace done to the Clergy reflect upon Christ yet what is done to the Bishop is far more and then there is the same reason of the honour And if so then the Question will prove but an odd one even this Whether Christ be to be honoured or no or depressed to the common estimate of Vulgar people for if the Bishops be then he is This is the condition of the Question 2. Consider we that all Religions and particularly all Christianity did give Titles of honour to their High-Priests and Bishops respectively * I shall not need to instance in the great honour of the Priestly tribe among the Jews and how highly honourable Aaron was in proportion Prophets were called Lords in holy Scripture Art not thou my Lord Elijah said Obadiah to the Prophet Knowest thou not that God will take thy Lord from thy head this day said the children in the Prophets Schools So it was then And in the new Testament we find a Prophet Honoured every where but in his own Country And to the Apostles and Presidents of Churches greater titles of honour given than was ever given to man by secular complacence and insinuation Angels and Governours and Fathers of our Faith and Stars Lights of the World the Crown of the Church Apostles of Jesus Christ nay Gods viz. to whom the Word of God came and of the compellation of Apostles particularly Saint Hierom saith that when Saint Paul called himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ it was as Magnifically spoken as if he had said Praefectus praetorio Augusts Caesaris Magister exercitus Tiberii Imperatoris And yet Bishops are Apostles and so called in Scripture I have proved that already Indeed our blessed Saviour in the case of the two sons of Zebedee forbad them to expect by vertue of their Apostolate any Princely titles in order to a Kingdom and an earthly Principality For that was it which the ambitious woman sought for her sons viz. fair honour and dignity in an earthly Kingdom for such a Kingdom they expected with their Messias To this their expectation our Saviours answer is a direct antithesis And that made the Apostles to be angry at the two Petitioners as if they had meant to supplant the rest and get the best preferment from them to wit in a temporal Kingdom No saith our blessed Saviour ye are all deceived The Kings of the Nations indeed do exercise authority and are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors so the word signifies Gracious Lords so we read it But it shall not be so with you What shall not be so with them shall not they exercise authority Who then is that faithful and wise Steward whom his Lord made Ruler over his Houshould Surely the Apostles or no body Had Christ authority Most certainly Then so had the Apostles for Christ gave them his with a sicut misit me pater c. Well! the Apostles might and we know they did exercise authority What then shall not be so with them Shall not they be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indeed if Saint Mark had taken that title upon him in Alexandria the Ptolomies whose Honorary appellative that was would have questioned him highly for it But if we go to the sence of the word the Apostles might be Benefactors and therefore might be called so But what then Might they not be called Gratious Lords The word would have done no hurt if it had not been an Ensign of a secular Principality For as for the word Lord I know no more prohibition for that than for being called Rabbi or Master or Doctor or Father What shall we think now May we not be called Doctors God hath constituted in his Church Pastors and Doctors saith Saint Paul Therefore we may be called so But what of the other the prohibition runs alike for all as is evident in the several places of the Gospels and may no man be called Master or Father Let an answer be thought on for these and the same will serve
the Bishops authority but it excludes the assistance of Lay-men from their Consistories Presbyter and Episcopus was instead of one word to S. Hierom but they are alwayes Clergy with him and all men else * But for the main Question Saint Ambrose did represent it to Valentinian the Emperour with confidence and humility In causa fidei vel Ecclesiastici alicujus ordinis eum judicare debere qui nec Munere impar sit nec jure dissimilis The whole Epistle is admirable to this purpose Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus judicare That Clergy-men must only judge of Clergy-causes and this Saint Ambrose there calls judicium Episcopale The Bishops judicature Si tractandum est tractare in Ecclesiâ didici quod Majores fecerunt mei Si conferendum de fide Sacerdotum debet esse ista collatio sicut factum est sub Constantino Aug. memoriae Principe So that both matters of Faith and of Ecclesiastical Order are to be handled in the Church and that by Bishops and that sub Imperatore by permission and authority of the Prince For so it was in Nice under Constantine Thus far Saint Ambrose * Saint Athanasius reports that Hosius Bishop of Corduba President in the Nicene Council said it was the abomination of desolation that a Lay-man shall be Judge in Ecclesiasticis judiciis in Church-causes And Leontius calls Church-affairs Res alienas à Laicis things of another Court of a distinct cognisance from the Laity To these add the Council of Venice for it is very considerable in this Question Clerico nisi ex permissu Episcopi sui servorum suorum saecularia judicia adire non liceat Sed si fortasse Episcopi sui judicium coeperit habere suspectum aut ipsi de proprietate aliquâ adversus ipsum Episcopum fuerit nata contentio aliorum Episcoporum audientiam non saecularium potestatum debebit ambire Aliter à communione habeatur alienus Clergy-men without delegation from their Bishop may not hear the causes of their servants but the Bishop unless the Bishop be appealed from then other Bishops must hear the cause but no Lay-Judges by any means * These Sanctions of holy Church it pleased the Emperour to ratifie by an Imperial Edict for so Justinian commanded that in causes Ecclesiastical secular Judges should have no interest Sed sanctissimus Episcopus secundum sacras regulas causae finem imponat The Bishop according to the sacred Canons must be the sole Judge of Church-matters I end this with the decretal of Saint Gregory one of the four Doctors of the Church Cavendum est à Fraternitate vestrâ ne saecularibus viris atque non sub regulâ nostrâ degentibus res Ecclesiasticae committantur Heed must be taken that matters Ecclesiastical be not any wayes concredited to secular persons But of this I have twice spoken already Sect. 36. and Sect. 41. The thing is so evident that it is next to impudence to say that in Antiquity Lay-men were parties and assessors in the Consistory of the Church It was against their faith it was against their practice and those few pigmy objections out of Tertullian S. Ambrose and S. Austin using the word Seniores or Elders sometimes for Priests as being the Latine for the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for a secular Magistrate or Alderman for I think Saint Austin did so in his third Book against Cresconius are but like Sophoms to prove that two and two are not four for to pretend such slight aery imaginations against the constant known open Catholick practice and Doctrine of the Church and History of all ages is as if a man should go to fight an Imperial Army with a single bulrush They are not worth further considering * But this is That in this Question of Lay-Elders the Modern Arrians and Acephali do wholly mistake their own advantages For whatsoever they object out of Antiquity for the white and watery colours of Lay-Elders is either a very misprision of their allegations or else clearly abused in the use of them For now adayes they are only us'd to exclude and drive forth Episcopacy but then they misalledge Antiquity for the men with whose Heisers they would fain plough in this Question were themselves Bishops for the most part and he that was not would fain have been it is known so of Tertullian and therefore most certainly if they had spoken of Lay-Judges in Church matters which they never dream'd of yet meant them not so as to exclude Episcopacy and if not then the pretended allegations can do no service in the present Question I am only to clear this pretence from a place of Scripture totally misunderstood and then it cannot have any colour from any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either Divine or Humane but that Lay-Judges of causes Ecclesiastical as they are unheard of in Antiquity so they are neither nam'd in Scripture nor receive from thence any instructions for their deportment in their imaginary office and therefore may be remanded to the place from whence they came even the Lake of Gehenna and so to the place of the nearest denomination The Objection is from Saint Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word and doctrine especially they therefore all Elders do not so Here are two sorts of Elders Preaching Ministers and Elders not Preachers Therefore Lay-Elders and yet all are Governours 1. But why therefore Lay-Elders Why may there not be diverse Church-officers and yet but one or two of them the Preacher Christ sent me not to Baptize but to Preach saith S. Paul and yet the commission of baptizate was as large as praedicate and why then might not another say Christ sent me not to Preach but to Baptize that is in S. Paul's sence not so much to do one as to do the other and if he left the ordinary ministration of Baptism and betook himself to the ordinary office of Preaching then to be sure some Minister must be the ordinary Baptizer and so not the Preacher for if he might be both ordinarily why was not Saint Paul both For though their power was common to all of the same Order yet the execution and dispensation of the Ministeries was according to several gifts and that of Prophecy or Preaching was not dispensed to all in so considerable a measure but that some of them might be destin'd to the ordinary execution of other Offices and yet because the gift of Prophecy was the greatest so also was the Office and therefore the sence of the words is this That all Presbyters must be honoured but especially they that Prophesie doing that office with an ordinary execution and ministery So no Lay-Elders yet Add to this that it is also plain that all the Clergy did not Preach Valerius Bishop of Hippo could not well skill in the Latine tongue being a Greek born
and yet a Godly Bishop and Saint Austin his Presbyter preached for him The same case might occur in the Apostles times For then was a concurse of all Nations to the Christian Synaxes especially in all great Imperial Cities and Metropolitans as Rome Antioch Jerusalem Caesarea and the like Now all could not speak with tongues neither could all Prophesie they were particular gifts given severally to several men appointed to minister in Church-offices Some prophesied some interpreted and therefore it is an ignorant fancy to think that he must needs be a Laick whosoever in the ages Apostolical was not a Preacher 2. None of the Fathers ever expounded this place of Lay-Elders so that we have a traditive interpretation of it in prejudice to the pretence of our new Office 3. The word Presbyter is never used in the New-Testament for a Lay-man if a Church-officer be intended If it be said it is used so here that is the Question and must not be brought to prove it self 4. The Presbyter that is here spoken of must be maintained by Ecclesiastical Revenue for so Saint Paul expounds honour in the next verse Presbyters that rule well must be honoured c. For it is written thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the corn But now the Patrons of this new devise are not so greedy of their Lay-Bishops as to be at charges with them they will rather let them stand alone on their own rotten legs and so perish than fix him upon this place with their hands in their purses But it had been most fitting for them to have kept him being he is of their own begetting 5. This place speaks not of divers persons but divers parts of the Pastoral office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To rule and to labour in the Word Just as if the expression had been in materiâ politicâ All good Councellors of State are worthy of double honour especially them that disregarding their own private aim at the publick good This implies not two sorts of Counsellors but two parts of a Counsellors worth and quality Judges that do righteousness are worthy of double honour especially if they right the cause of Orphans and Widows and yet there are no righteous Judges that refuse to do both 6. All Ministers of H. Church did not preach at least not frequently The seven that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over the Widows were Presbyters but yet they were forced to leave the constant ministration of the Word to attend that imployment as I shewed formerly and thus it was in descent too for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Socrates A Presbyter does not Preach in Alexandria the Bishop only did it And then the allegation is easily understood For labouring in the word does not signifie only making Homilies or Exhortations to the people but whether it be by word or writing or travelling from place to place still the greater the sedulity of the person is and difficulty of the labour the greater increment of honour is to be given him So that here is no Lay-Elders for all the Presbyters S. Paul speaks of are to be honoured but especially those who take extraordinary pains in propagating the Gospel For though all preach suppose that yet all do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take such great pains in it as is intimated in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to take bodily labour and travel usque ad lassitudinem so Budaeus renders it And so it is likely S. Paul here means Honour the good Presbyters but especially them that travel for disseminating the Gospel And the word is often so used in Scripture S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have travelled in the word more than they all Not that S. Paul preached more than all the Apostles for most certainly they made it their business as well as he But he travelled further and more than they all for the spreading it And thus it is said of the good Women that travelled with the Apostles for supply of the necessities of their diet and houshold offices they laboured much in the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word for them too So it is said of Persis of Mary of Tryphaena of Tryphosa And since those Women were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that travelled with the Apostolical men and Evangelists the men also travelled too and preached and therefore were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is travellers in the word We ought therefore to receive such saith S. John intimating a particular reception of them as being towards us of a peculiar merit So that the sence of S. Paul may be this also All the Rulers of the Church that is all Bishops Apostles and Apostolick men are to be honoured but especially them who besides the former ruling are also travellers in the word or Evangelists 7. We are furnished with answer enough to infatuate this pretence for Lay-Elders from the common draught of the new discipline For they have some that Preach only and some that Rule and Preach too and yet neither of them the Lay-Elder viz. their Pastors and Doctors 8. Since it is pretended by themselves in the Question of Episcopacy that Presbyter and Episcopus is all one and this very thing confidently obtruded in defiance of Episcopacy why may not Presbyteri in this place signifie Bishops And then either this must be Lay-Bishops as well as Lay-Presbyters or else this place is to none of their purposes 9. If both these Offices of Ruling and Preaching may be conjunct in one person then there is no necessity of distinguishing the Officers by the several imployments since one man may do both But if these Offices cannot be conjunct then no Bishops must preach nor no Preachers be of the Consistory take which government you list for if they be then the Officer being united in one person the inference of the dististinct Officer the Lay-Elder is impertinent For the meaning of Saint Paul would be nothing but this All Church-Rulers must be honoured especially for their preaching For if the Offices may be united in one person as it is evident they may then this may be comprehended within the other and only be a vital part and of peculiar excellency And indeed so it is according to the Exposition of Saint Chrysostom and Primasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They rule well that spare nothing for the care of the Flock So that this is the general charge and preaching is the particular For the work in general they are to receive double honour but this of preaching as then preaching was had a particular excellency and a plastick power to form men into Christianity especially it being then attested with miracles But the new Office of a Lay-Elder I confess I cannot comprehend in any reasonable proportion his person his quality his office his authority his subordination his commission hath made so many divisions and
but is an affirmation of the manner though in disputation it be made the predicate of a proposition and the opposite member of a distinction That body which was crucified is not that body that is eaten in the Sacrament if the intention of the proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being but that body which was crucified the same body we do eat if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several manners of being and operating and this I noted that we may not be prejudiced by words when the notion is certain and easie And thus far is the sence of our doctrine in this Article 12. On the other side the Church of Rome uses the same words we do but wholly to other purposes affirming 1. That after the words of consecration on the Altar there is no bread in the Chalice there is no wine 2. That the accidents that is the colour the shape the bigness the weight the smell the nourishing qualities of bread and wine do remain but neither in the bread nor in the body of Christ but by themselves that is so that there is whiteness and nothing white sweetness and nothing sweet c. 3. That in the place of the substance of bread and wine there is brought the natural body of Christ and his blood that was shed upon the Cross. 4. That the flesh of Christ is eaten by every Communicant good and bad worthy and unworthy 5. That this is conveniently properly and most aptly called Transubstantiation that is a conversion of the whole substance of bread into the substance of Christs natural body of the whole substance of the wine into his blood In the process of which doctrine they oppose spiritualiter to sacramentaliter and realiter supposing the spiritual manducation though done in the Sacrament by a worthy receiver not to be sacramental and real 13. So that now the question is not Whether the symbols be changed into Christs body and blood or no For it is granted on all sides but whether this conversion be Sacramental and figurative or whether it be natural and bodily Nor is it whether Christ be really taken but whether he be taken in a spiritual or in a natural manner We say the conversion is figurative mysterious and Sacramental they say it is proper natural and corporal we affirm that Christ is really taken by Faith by the Spirit to all real effects of his passion they say he is taken by the mouth and that the spiritual and the virtual taking him in virtue or effect is not sufficient though done also in the Sacrament Hic Rhodus his saltus This thing I will try by Scripture by Reason by Sense and by Tradition SECT II. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture 1. THE Scriptures pretended for it are S. John 6. and the words of institution recorded by three Evangelists and S. Paul Concerning which I shall first lay this prejudice that by the confession of the Romanists themselves men learned and famous in their generations nor these places nor any else in Scripture are sufficient to prove Transubstantiation Cardinal Cajetan affirms that there is in Scripture nothing of force or necessity to infer Transubstantiation out of the words of institution and that the words seclusâ Ecclesiae authoritate setting aside the decree of the Church are not sufficient This is reported by Suarez but he says that the words of Cajetan by the command of Pius V. were left out of the Roman Edition and he adds that Cajetanus solus ex catholicis hoc docuit He only of their side taught it which is carelesly affirmed by the Jesuite for another Cardinal Bishop of Rochester John Fisher affirmed the same thing for speaking of the words of institution recorded by S. Matthew he says Neque ullum hîc verbum positum est quo probetur in nostrâ missâ veram fieri carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam There are no words set down here viz. in the words of institution by which it may be proved that in our Mass there is a true presence of the flesh and blood of Christ. To this I add a third Cardinal Bishop of Cambray de Aliaco who though he likes the opinion because it was then more common that the substance of bread does not remain after consecration yet ea non sequitur evidenter ex Scripturis it does not follow evidently from Scripture 2. To these three Cardinals I add the concurrent testimony of two famous Schoolmen Johannes Duns Scotus who for his rare wit and learning became a Father of a Scholastical faction in the Schools of Rome affirms Non extare locum ullum Scripturae tam expressum ut sine Ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat Transubstantiationem admittere There is no place of Scripture so express that without the declaration of the Church it can evidently compel us to admit Transubstantiation And Bellarmine himself says that it is not altogether improbable since it is affirmed à doctissimis acutissimis hominibus by most learned and most acute men The Bishop of Eureux who was afterwards Cardinal Richelieu not being well pleased with Scotus in this question said that Scotus had only considered the testimonies of the Fathers cited by Gratian Peter Lombard Aquinas and the Schoolmen before him Suppose that But these testimonies are not few and the witty man was as able to understand their opinion by their words as any man since and therefore we have the in-come of so many Fathers as are cited by the Canon-Law the Master of the sentences and his Scholars to be partly a warrant and none of them to contradict the opinion of Scotus who neither believed it to be taught evidently in Scripture nor by the Fathers 3. The other Schoolman I am to reckon in this account is Gabriel Biel. Quomodo ibi sit corpus Christi an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantiâ accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canone Bibliae How the body of Christ is there whether by conversion of any thing into it or without conversion it begin to be the body of Christ with the bread the accidents and the substance of the bread still remaining is not found expressed in the Canon of the Bible Hitherto I could add the concurrent Testimony of Ocham in 4. q. 6. of Johonnes de Bassolis who is called Doctor Ordinatissimus but that so much to the same purpose is needless and the thing is confessed to be the opinion of many writers of their own party as appears in Salmeron And Melchior Canus Bishop of the Canaries amongst the things not expressed in Scripture reckons the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. 4. If it be said that the Churches determination is a better interpreter of Scripture than they it
sufficient in this excuse For if eating Christ by faith be a thing of all times then it is also of the future and no difference of time is so apt to express an Eternal truth as is the future which is alwayes in flux and potential signification But the secret of the thing was this the Arguments against the sacramental sence of these words drawn from the following verses between this and the 51. verse could not so well be answered and therefore Bellarmine found out the trick of confessing all till you come thither as appears in his Answer to the ninth Argument that of some Catholicks However as to the Article I am to say these things 1. That very many of the most learned Romanists affirm that in this Chapter Christ does not speak of sacramental or oral manducation or of the Sacrament at all Johannes de Ragusio Biel Cusanus Ruard Tapper Cajetan Hessels Jansenius Waldensis Armachanus save only that Bellarmine going to excuse it sayes in effect that they did not do it very honestly for he affirms that they did it that they might confute the Hussites and the Lutherans about the Communion under both kinds and if it be so and not be so as it may serve a turn It is so for Transubstantiation and it is not so for the half Communion we have but little reason to rely upon their judgment or candor in any exposition of Scripture But it is no new thing for some sort of men to do so The Heretick Severus in Anastasius Sinaita maintained it lawful and even necessary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to occasions and emergent heresies to alter and change the Doctrines of Christ and the Cardinal of Cusa affirmed it lawful diversly to expound the Scriptures according to the times So that we know what precedents and authorities they can urge for so doing and I doubt not but it is practised too often since it was offered to be justified by Dureus against Whitaker 2. These great Clerks had reason to expound it not to be meant of sacramental manducation to avoid the unanswerable Argument against their half Communion for so Christ said Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you It is therefore as necessary to drink the Chalice as to eat the Bread and we perish if we omit either And their new whimsie of Concomitancy will not serve the turn because there it is sanguis effusus that is sacramentally powred forth blood that is powred forth not that is in the body 2. If it were in the body yet a man by no concomitancy can be said to drink what he only eats 3. If in the Sacramental body Christ gave the blood by concomitancy then he gave the blood twice which to what purpose it might be done is not yet revealed 4. If the blood be by concomitancy in the body then so is the body with the blood and then it will be sufficient to drink the Chalice without the Host as to eat the Host without the Chalice and then we must drink his Flesh as well as eat his Blood which if we could suppose to be possible yet the precept of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood were not observed by drinking that which is to be eaten and eating that which is to be drunk But certainly they are fine Propositions which cannot be true unless we can eat our drink and drink our meat unless bread be wine and wine be bread or to speak in their stile unless the body be the blood and the blood the body that is unless each of the two Symboles be the other as much as it self as much that which it is not as that which it is And this thing their own Pope Innocentius the third and from him Vasquez noted and Salmeron who affirmed that Christ commanded the manner as well as the thing and that without eating and drinking the precept of Christ is not obeyed 3. But whatever can come of this yet upon the account of these words so expounded by some of the Fathers concerning oral manducation and potation they believed themselves bound by the same necessity to give the Eucharist to Infants as to give them Baptism and did for above seven Ages together practise it And let these men that will have these words spoken of the Eucharist answer the Argument Bellarmine is troubled with it and instead of answering increases the difficulty and concludes firmly against himself saying If the words be understood of eating Christ's body spiritually or by faith it will be more impossible to Infants for it is easier to give them intinctum panem bread dipt in the Chalice than to make them believe To this I reply that therefore it is spoken to Infants in neither sence neither is any law at all given to them and no laws can be understood as obligatory to them in that capacity But then although I have answered the Argument because I believe it not to be meant in the Sacramental sence to any nor in the Spiritual sence to them yet Bellarmine hath not answered the pressure that lies upon his cause For since it is certain and he confesses it that it is easier that is it is possible to give Infants the Sacrament it follows that if here the Sacrament be meant Infants are obliged that is the Church is obliged to minister it as well as Baptism there being in vertue of these words the same necessity and in the nature of the thing the same possibility of their receiving it But then on the other side no inconvenience can press our interpretation of spiritual eating Christ by faith because it being naturally impossible that Infants should believe they cannot be concerned in an impossible Commandment So that we can answer Saint Austin's and Innocentius his Arguments for communicating of Infants but they cannot 4. If these words be understood of Sacramental manducation then no man can be saved but he that receives the holy Sacrament For unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye have no life in you if it be answered that the holy Sacrament must be eaten in act or in desire I reply that is not true because if a Catechumen desires Baptism only in the Article of his death it is sufficient to salvation and they dare not deny it 2. Fools young persons they that are surprised with sudden death cannot be thought to perish for want of the actual susception or desire 3. There is nothing in the words that can warrant or excuse the actual omission of the Sacrament and it is a strange deception that these men suffer by misunderstanding this distinction of receiving the Sacrament either in act or desire For they are not opposite but subordinate members differ only as act and disposition and this disposition is not at all required but as it
the Whale might have been said to have eaten Jonas when she swallowed him without manducation or breaking him and yet no man does speak so but in the description of that accident reckon the Whale to be fasting for all that morsel Invasúsque cibus jejunâ vixit in alvo said Alcimus Avitus Jejuni plenÃque tamen vate intemerato said Sidonius Apollinaris vivente jejunus cibo so Paulinus the fish was full and fasting that is she swallowed Jonas but eat nothing As a man does not eat Bullets or Quicksilver against the Iliacal passion but swallows them and we do not eat our pills The Greek Physicians therefore call a Pill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing to be swallowed and that this is distinct from eating Aristotle tells us speaking of the Elephant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he eats the earth but swallows the stones And Hesychius determined this thing Non comedet ex eo quisquam i. e. non dividetur quia dentium est dividere partiri cibos cum aliter mandi non possint To chew is but a circumstance of nourishment but the essence of manducation But Bellarmine adds that if you will not allow him to say so then he grants it in plain terms that Christ's body is chewed is attrite or broken with the teeth and that not tropically but properly which is the crass Doctrine which Christ reproved in the men of Capernaum To lessen and sweeten this expression he tells us it is indeed broken but how under the species of bread and invisibly well so it is though we see it not and it matters not under what if it be broken and we bound to believe it then we cannot avoid the being that which they so detested devourers of Mans flesh See Theophylact in number 15. of this section 6. Concerning the bread or the meat indeed of which Christ speaks he also affirms that whosoever eats it hath life abiding in him But this is not true of the Sacrament for the wicked eating it receive to themselves damnation It cannot therefore be understood of oral manducation but of spiritual and of eating Christ by faith that is receiving him by an instrument or action Evangelical For receiving Christ by faith includes any way of communicating with his body By baptism by holy desires by obedience by love by worthy receiving of the Holy Sacrament and it signifies no otherwise but as if Christ had said To all that believe in me and obey I will become the Author of life and salvation Now because this is not done by all that receive the Sacrament not by unworthy Communicants who yet eat the Symbols according to us and eat Christ's body according to their Doctrine it is unanswerably certain that Christ here spake of Spiritual manducation not of Sacramental Bellarmine he that answers all things whether he can or no sayes that words of this nature are conditional meaning that he who eats Christ's flesh worthily shall live for ever and therefore this effects nothing upon vicious persons yet it may be meant of the Sacrament because without his proper condition it is not prevalent I reply that it is true it is not it cannot and that this condition is spiritual manducation but then without this condition the man doth not eat Christs flesh that which himself calls the true bread for he that eats this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath life in him that is he is united to me he is in the state of grace at present For it ought to be observed that although promises de futuro possibili are to be understood with a condition appendant yet Propositions affirmative at present are declarations of a thing in being and suppose it actually existent and the different parts of this observation are observable in the several parts of the 54. verse He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life that 's an affirmation of a thing in being and therefore implies no other condition but the connexion of the predicate with the subject He that eats hath life But it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I will raise him up at the last day that 's de futuro possibili and therefore implies a condition besides the affirmation of the Antecedent viz. si permanserit if he remain in this condition and does not unravel his first interest and forfeit his life And so the Argument remains unharm'd and is no other than what I learned from Saint Austin Hujus rei Sacramentum c. de mensâ Dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium Res verò ipsa cujus Sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque ejus particeps fuerit And it is remarkable that the context and design of this place takes off this evasion from the Adversary For here Christ opposes this eating of his flesh to the Israelites eating of Manna and prefers it infinitely because they who did eat Manna might die viz. spiritually and eternally but they that eat his flesh shall never die meaning they shall not die eternally and therefore this eating cannot be a thing which can possibly be done unworthily For if Manna as it was Sacramental had been eaten worthily they had not died who eat it and what priviledge then is in this above Manna save only that the eating of this supposes the man to do it worthily and to be a worthy person which the other did not Upon which consideration Cajetan sayes that this eating is not common to worthily and unworthily and that it is not spoken of eating the Sacrament but of eating and drinking that is communicating with the death of Jesus The Argument therefore lies thus There is something which Christ hath promis'd us which whosoever receives he receives life and not death but this is not the Sacrament for of them that communicate some receive to life and some to death saith S. Austin and a greater than S. Austin S. Paul and yet this which is life to all that receive it is Christ's flesh said Christ himself therefore Christ's flesh here spoken of is not Sacramental 7. To warrant the Spiritual sence of these words against the Natural it were easie to bring down a traditive interpretation of them by the Fathers at least a great consent Tertullian hath these words Etsi carnem ait nihil prodesse Materiâ dicti dirigendus est sensus Nam quia durum intolerabilem existimaverunt sermonem ejus quasi verè carnem suam illis edendum determinâsset ut in spiritu disponeret statum salutis praemisit Spiritus est qui vivificat atque ita subjunxit Caro nihil prodest ad vivificandum scil Because they thought his saying hard and intolerable as if he had determined his flesh to be eaten by them that he might dispose the state of salvation in the spirit he premis'd It is the spirit that giveth life and then subjoyns The flesh profiteth nothing
meaning nothing to the giving of life So that here we have besides his authority an excellent Argument for us Christ said he that eateth my flesh hath life but the flesh that is the fleshly sence of it profits nothing to life but the Spirit that is the spiritual sence does therefore these words are to be understood in a spiritual sence 9. And because it is here opportune by occasion of this discourse let me observe this that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is infinitely useless and to no purpose For by the words of our Blessed Lord by the Doctrine of Saint Paul and the sence of the Church and the confession of all sides the natural eating of Christ's flesh if it were there or could so be eaten alone or of it self does no good does not give life but the spiritual eating of him is the instrument of life to us and this may be done without their Transubstantiated flesh it may be done in Baptisme by Faith and Charity by Hearing and understanding and therefore it may also in the blessed Eucharist although there also according to our Doctrine he be eaten only Sacramentally and Spiritually And hence it is that in the Mass-book anciently it is prayed after consecration Quaesumus Omnipotens Deus ut de perceptis muneribus gratias exhibentes beneficia potiora sumamus We beseech thee Almighty God that we giving thanks for these gifts received may receive greater gifts which besides that it concludes against the Natural Presence of Christ's body for what greater thing can we receive if we receive that it also declares that the grace and effect of the Sacramental communion is the thing designed beyond all corporal sumption and as it is more fully express'd in another Collect Vt terrenis affectibus expiati ad superni plenitudinem Sacramenti cujus libavimus sancta tendamus that being redeemed from all earthly affections we may tend to the fulness of the Heavenly Sacrament the Holy things of which we have now begun to taste And therefore to multiply so many miracles and contradictions and impossibilities to no purpose is an insuperable prejudice against any pretence less than a plain declaration from God Add to this that this bodily presence of Christ's body is either for corporal nourishment or for spiritual Not for Corporal for Natural food is more proper for it and to work a Miracle to do that for which so many Natural means are already appointed is to no purpose and therefore cannot be supposed to be done by God neither is it done for spiritual nourishment because to the spiritual nourishment vertues and graces the word and the efficacious signs faith and the inward actions and all the emanations of the Spirit are as proportion'd as meat and drink are to natural nourishment and therefore there can be no need of a Corporal Presence 2. Corporal manducation of Christ's body is apparently inconsistent with the nature and condition of a body 1. Because that which is after the manner of a spirit and not of a body cannot be eaten and drunk after the manner of a body but of a spirit as no man can eat a Cherubin with his mouth if he were made apt to nourish the soul but by the confession of the Roman Doctors Christ's body is present in the Eucharist after the manner of a spirit therefore without proportions to our body or bodily actions 2. That which neither can feel or be felt see or be seen move or be mov'd change or be changed neither do or suffer corporally cannot certainly be eaten corporally but so they affirm concerning the body of our blessed Lord it cannot do or suffer corporally in the Sacrament therefore it cannot be eaten corporally any more than a man can chew a spirit or eat a meditation or swallow a syllogism into his belly This would be so far from being credible that God should work so many Miracles in placing Christ's Natural body for spiritual nourishment that in case it were revealed to be placed there to that purpose it self must need one great Miracle more to verifie it and reduce it to act and it would still be as difficult to explain as it is to tell how the material fire of Hell should torment spirits and souls And Socrates in Plato's Banquent said well Wisdom is not a thing that can be communicated by local or corporal contiguity 3. That the Corporal presence does not nourish spiritually appears because some are nourished spiritually who do not receive the Sacrament at all and some that do receive yet fall short of being spiritually nourished and so do all unworthy Communicants This therefore is to no purpoose and therefore cannot be supposed to be done by the wise God of all the World especially with so great a pomp of Miracles 4. Cardinal Perron affirms that the Real Natural presence of Christ in the Sacrament is to greatest purpose because the residence of Christ's Natural body in our bodies does really and substantially joyn us unto God establishing a true and real Unity between God and Men. And Bellarmine speaks something like this de Euchar. l. 3. c. 9. But concerning this besides that every faithful soul is actually united to Christ without the actual residence of Christ's body in our bodies since every one that is regenerated and born a new of water and of the Spirit is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same plant with Christ as Saint Paul calls him Rom. 6.5 He hath put on Christ he is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh Galat. 3.27 Ephes. 5.30 and all this by Faith by Baptism by regeneration of the Spirit besides this I say this corporal union of our bodies to the body of God incarnate which these great and witty Dreamers dream of would make man to be God For that which hath a real and substantial unity with God is consubstantial with the true God that is he is really substantially and truly God which to affirm were highest blasphemy 5. One device more there is to pretend an usefulness of the Doctrine of Christ's Natural presence viz. that by his contact and conjunction it becomes the cause and the seed of the Resurrection But besides that this is condemn'd by Vasquez as groundless and by Suarez as improbable and a novel temerity it is highly confuted by their own Doctrine For how can the contact or touch of Christ's body have that or any effect on ours when it can neither be touch'd nor seen nor understood but by faith which Bellarmine expresly affirms But to return from whence I am digressed Tertullian adds in the same place Quia sermo caro erat factus proinde in causam vitae appetendus devorandus auditu ruminandus intellectu fide digerendus Nam paulò antè carnem suam panem quoque coelestem pronunciârat urgens usquequaque per allegoriam necessariorum pabulorum memoriam Patrum qui panes carnes Egyptiorum praeverterant
them they should So that though these words were spoken of Sacramental manducation as sometimes it is expounded yet there is reality enough in the spiritual sumption to verifie these words of Christ without a thought of any bodily eating his flesh And that we may not think this Doctrine dropt from S. Austin by chance he again affirms dogmatically Qui discordat à Christo nec carnem ejus manducat nec sanguinem bibit etiamsi tantae rei sacramentum ad judicium suae praesumptionis quotidiè indifferenter accipiat He that disagrees from Christ that is disobeys him neither eats his flesh nor drinks his blood although to his condemnation he every day receive the Sacrament of so great a thing The consequent of which words is plainly this that there is no eating of Christ's flesh or drinking his blood but by a moral instrument faith and subordination to Christ the sacramental external eating alone being no eating of Christ's flesh but the Symbols and Sacrament of it 22. Lastly Suppose these words of Christ The bread which I shall give is my flesh were spoken literally of the Sacrament what he promised he would give he perform'd and what was here expressed in the future tense was in his time true in the present tense and therefore is alwayes presently true after consecration It follows that in the Sacrament this is true Panis est corpus Christi The bread is the body of Christ. Now I demand whether this Proposition will be owned It follows inevitably from this Doctrine If these words be spoken of the Sacrament But it is disavowed by the Princes of the party against us Hoc tamen est impossibile quòd panis sit corpus Christi It is impossible that the bread should be Christ's body saith the Gloss of Gratian and Bellarmine sayes it cannot be a true Proposition In quâ subjectum supponit proâ—pane praedicatum autem pro corpore Christi Panis enim corpus Domini res diversissimae sunt The thing that these men dread is lest it be called bread and Christ's body too as we affirm it unanimously to be and as this Argument upon their own grounds evinces it Now then how can they serve both ends I cannot understand If they will have the bread or the meat which Christ promis'd to give to be his flesh then so it came to pass and then it is bread and flesh too If it did not so come to pass and that it is impossible that bread should be Christ's flesh then when Christ said the bread which he would give should be his flesh he was not to be understood properly of the Sacrament But either figuratively in the Sacrament or in the Sacrament not at all either of which will serve the end of truth in this Question But of this hereafter By this time I hope I may conclude that Transubstantiation is not taught by our Blessed Lord in the sixth Chapter of Saint John Johannes de tertiâ Eucharisticâ coenâ nihil quidem scribit eò quod caeteri tres Evangelistae ante illum eam plenè descripsissent They are the words of Stapleton and are good evidence against them SECT IV. Of the Words of Institution 1. MULTA mala oportet interpretari eos qui unum non rectè intelligere volunt said Irenaeus they must needs speak many false things who will not rightly understand one The words of consecration are Praecipuum fundamentum totius controversiae atque adeò totius hujus altissimi mysterii said Bellarmine the greatest ground of the whole Question and by adhering to the letter the Mystery is lost and the whole party wanders in eternal intricacies and inextricable Riddles which because themselves cannot untie they torment their sense and their reason and many places of Scripture whilst they pertinaciously stick to the impossible letter and refuse the spirit of these words The Words of Institution are these S. Matth. 26.26 Jesus took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins S. Luke 22.19 And he took bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave to them saying This is my body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me Likewise also the cup after Supper saying This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you S. Mark 14.22 Jesus took bread and blessed it and gave to them and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them and they all drank of it and he said to them This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many 1 Cor. 11.23 The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread And when he had given thanks he brake it and said Take eat This is my body which is broken for you this do in remembrance of me After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the New Testament in my blood This do ye as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me 2. These words contain the Institution and are wholly called the words of Consecration in the Latine Church Concerning which the consideration is material Out of these words the Latine Church separates Hoc est corpum meum This is my body and say that these words pronounced by the Priest with due intention do effect this change of the bread into Christs body which change they call Transubstantiation But if these words do not effect any such change then it may be Christs body before the words and these may only declare what is already done by the prayers of the Holy man or else it may become Christ's body only in the use and manducation and as it will be uncertain when the change is so also it cannot be known what it is If it be Christ's body before those words then the literal sence of these words will prove nothing it is so as it will be before these words and made so by other words which refer wholly to use and then the praecipuum fundamentum the pillar and ground of Tranbsubstantiation is supplanted And if it be only after the words and not effected by the words it will be Christ's body only in the reception Now concerning this I have these things to say 3. First By what Argument can it be proved that these words Take and eat are not as effective of the change as Hoc est corpus meum This is my body If they be then the taking and eating does consecrate and it is not Christ's body till it be taken and eaten and then when that 's done it is so no more and besides that reservation circumgestation adoration
And Saint Austin calls the Sacrament prece mysticâ consecratum But concerning this I have largely discoursed in another place But the effect of the consideration in order to the present Question is this that since the change that is made is made not naturally or by a certain number of syllables in the manner of a charm but solemnly sacredly morally and by prayer it becomes also the body of our Lord to moral effects as a consequent of a moral instrument 8. Sixthly And it is considerable that since the ministeries of the Church are but imitations of Christ's Priestood which he officiates in Heaven since he effects all the purposes of his graces and our redemption by intercession and representing in the way of prayer the Sacrifice which he offered on the Cross it follows that the ministeries of the Church must be of the same kind operating in the way of prayer morally and therefore wholly to moral purposes to which the instrument is made proportionable And if these words which are called the words of Consecration be exegetical and enunciative of the change that is made by prayers and other mystical words it cannot be possibly inferred from these words that there is any other change made than what refers to the whole mystery and action and therefore Take eat and this do are as necessary to the Sacrament as Hoc est corpus and declare that it is Christ's body only in the use and administration and therefore not natural but spiritual And this is yet more plain by the words in the Hebrew Text of Saint Matthew Take eat this which is my body plainly supposing the thing to be done already not by the exegetical words but by the precedents the mystick prayer and the words of institution and use and to this I never saw any thing pretended in answer But the force of the Argument upon supposition of the premises is acknowledged to be convincing by an Archbishop of their own Si Christus dandâ— consecravit c. If Christ giving the Eucharist did consecrate as Scotus affirmed then the Lutherans will carry the victory who maintain that the body of Christ is in the Eucharist only while it is used while it was taken and eaten And yet on the other side if it was consecrated when Christ said Take eat then he commanded them to take bread and to eat bread which is to destroy the Article of Transubstantiation So that in effect whether it was consecrated by those words or not by those words their new Doctrine is destroyed If it was not consecrated when Christ said Take eat then Christ bid them take bread and eat bread and they did so But if it was consecrated by those words Take eat then the words of consecration refer wholly to use and it is Christ's body only in the taking and eating which is the thing we contend for And into the concession of this Bellarmine is thrust by the force of our Argument For to avoid Christ's giving the Apostles that which he took and brake and blessed that is breâ—d the same case being governed by all these words he answers Dominum accepisse benedixisse panem sed dedisse panem non vulgarem sed benedictum benedictione mutatum The Lord took bread and blessed it but he gave not common bread but bread blessed and changed by blessing and yet it is certain he gave it them before the words which he calls the words of Consecration To which I add this consideration that all words spoken in the person of another are only declarative and exegetical not operative and practical for in particular if these words hoc est corpus meum were otherwise then the Priest should turn it into his own not into the body of Christ. Neither will it be easie to have an answer not only because the Greeks and Latines are divided in the ground of their argument concerning the mystical instrument of consecration But the Latines themselves have seven several opinions as the Archbishop of Caesarea de capite Fontium hath enumerated them in his nuncupatory Epistle to Pope Sixtus Quintus before his book of divers treatises and that the consecration is made by this is my body though it be now the prevailing opinion yet that by them Christ did not consecrate the elements was the express sentence of Pope Innocent 3. and Innocent 4. and of many ancient Fathers as the same Archbishop of Caesarea testifies in the book now quoted and the Scholasticks are hugely divided upon this point viz. Whether these words are to be taken materially or significatively the expression is barbarous and rude but they mean whether they be consecratory or declarative Aquinas makes them consecratory and his authority brought that opinion into credit and yet Scotus and his followers are against it and they that affirm them to be taken significatively that is to be consecratory are divided into so many opinions that they are not easie to be reckoned only Guido Brianson reckons nine and his own makes the tenth This I take upon the credit of one of their own Archbishops 9. But I proceed to follow them in their own way whether Hoc est corpus meum do effect or signify the change yet the change is not natural and proper but figurative sacramental and spiritual exhibiting what it signifies being real to all intents and purposes of the Spirit and this I shall first shew by discussing the words of institution first those which they suppose to be the consecratory words and then the other 10. Hoc est corpus meum Concerning which form of words we must know that as the Eucharist it self was in the external and ritual part an imitation of a custome and a sacramental already in use among the Jews for the major domo to break bread and distribute wine at the Passeover after supper to the eldest according to his age to the youngest according to his youth as it is notorious and known in the practice of the Jews so also were the very words which Christ spake in this changed subject an imitation of the words which were then used This is the bread of sorrow which our Fathers eat in Egypt This is the Passeover and this Passeover was called the body of the Paschal Lamb nay it was called the body of our Saviour and our Saviour himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Justin Martyr dial cum Tryph. And Esdras said to the Jews This passeover is our Saviour and This is the body of our Saviour as it is noted by others So that here the words were made ready for Christ and made his by appropriation by meum he was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world he is the true Passeover which he then affirming called that which was the Antitype of the Passeover the Lamb of God His body the body of the true Passeover to wit in the same sacramental sence in which the like words were affirmed in
meus hic est sanguis Testamenti Now this is confuted before for it can only be true when there is no difference of subject and predicate as in all figures and sacraments and artificial representments there are Some others say This is that is this shall be my body So that is demonstrates not what is but what shall be But this prevailed not amongst them Others say that This signifies Nothing So Innocentius the third Major the Count of Mirandula De capite Fontium and Catharinus Others yet affirm that This signifies these accidents So Ruard Tapper and others whom Suarez reckons and confutes Thomas Aquinas and his Scholars affirm that This demonstrates neither bread nor the body nor nothing nor the accidents but a substance indefinitely which is under the accidents of bread as when Christ turned the water into wine he might have said Hoc est vinum not meaning that water is wine but this which is here or this which is in the vessel is wine which is an instance in which Bellarmine pleases himself very much and uses it more than once not at all considering that in this form of speech there is the same mistake as in the former for in this example there are not two things as we contend there are in the Sacrament and that to make up the proposition the understanding is forc'd to make an artificial subject and this refers to wine and is determined by his imaginary subject and makes not an essential or physical but a logical predication This which is in the vessel is wine and the proposition is identical if it be reduc'd to a substantial But when Christ said Hoc est corpus meum hoc first neither points to corpus as the others do to vinum even by their own confession nor yet secondly to an artificial subject whereby it can by imagination become demonstrative and determinate for then it were no real affirmative not at all significative much less effective of a change nor yet thirdly will they allow that it points to that subject which is really there viz. bread but what then It demonstrates something real that either 1. is not the predicate and then there would be two things disparate signified by it two distinct substances which in this case could be nothing but bread and the body of Christ or 2. it demonstrates nothing but the predicate and then the proposition were identical viz. this body of Christ is the body of Christ which is an absurd predication or else 3. it demonstrates something that is indemonstrable pointing at something that is nothing certain and then it cannot be pointed at or demonstrated for if by this which is under the species they mean any certain substance it must be bread or the body of Christ either of which undoes their cause 4. But if it be inquired by what Logick or Grammar it can be that a Pronoun demonstrative should signify indeterminately that is an individuum vagum They tell us no it does not but it signifies an individual determinate substance under the accidents of bread not according to the formality of the bread but secundùm rationem substantiae communem individuam vagè per ordinem ad accidentia but according to the formality of a substance common and individual indefinitely or indeterminately by order to those accidents So Gregory de Valentia which is as good and perfect non-sence as ever was spoken It is determinate and not determinate it is substantial in order to accidents individual and yet common universal and particular it is limited but after an unlimited manner that is it is and it is not that is it is the Logick and the Grammar and the proper sence of Transubstantiation which is not to be understood but by them that know the new and secret way to reconcile contradictories Bellarmine sweetens the sence of this as well as he may and says that the Pronoun demonstrative does point out and demonstrate the species that is the accidents of bread these accidents are certain and determinate so that the Pronoun demonstrative is on the side of the species or accidents not of the substance But yet so as to mean not the accidents but the substance and not the substance which is but which shall be for it is not the same yet which indeed is the same non-sence with the former abused or set off with a distinction the parts of which contradict each other The Pronoun demonstrative does only point to the accidents and yet does not mean the accidents but the substance under them and yet it does not mean the substance that is under them but that which shall be for the substance which is meant is not yet and it does not point at the substance but yet it means it For the substance indeed is meant by the Pronoun demonstrative but that it does not at all demonstrate it but the accidents only And indeed this is a fine secret The substance is pointed at before it is and the demonstration is upon the accidents but means the substance in obliquo but not in recto not directly but as by the bie just as a man can see a thing before it be made and by pointing at a thing which you see demonstrates or shews you a thing which shall never be seen But then if you desire to know how it was pointed at before it was that is the secret not yet revealed But finally this is the doctrine that hath prevailed at least in the Jesuits Schools This points out something under the accidents of bread meaning This which is contained under the accidents of bread is my body there it rests But before it go any further I shall disturb his rest with this Syllogism When Christ said Hoc this is my body by this he meant this which is contained under the accidents of bread is my body But at that instant that which was contained under the accidents of bread was the substance of bread Therefore to the substance of bread Christ pointed that he related to by the Pronoune demonstrative and of that he affirmed it was his body The Major is that the Jesuits contend for the Minor is affirmed by Bellarmine Quando dicitur Hoc tum non est praesens substantia corporis Christi therefore the conclusion ought to be his and owned by them However I will make bold to call it a demonstration upon their own grounds and conclude that it is bread and Christs body too and that is the doctrine of the Protestants And I add this also that it seems a great folly to declaim against us for denying the literal natural sence and yet that themselves should expound it in a sence which suffers a violence and a most unnatural ungrammatical torture for if they may change the words from the right sence and case to the oblique and indirect why may not we and it is less violence to say Hoc est corpus meum i. e. hic panis est
corpus meum viz. spiritualiter than to say hoc est that is sub his speciebus est corpus meum And this was the sence of Ocham the Father of the Nominalists it may be held that under the species of bread there remains also the substance because this is neither against reason nor any authority of the Bible and of all the manners this is most reasonable and more easie to maintain and from thence follow fewer inconveniences than from any other Yet because of the determination of the Church viz. of Rome all the Doctors commonly hold the contrary By the way observe that their Church hath determined against that against which neither the Scripture nor reason hath determined 2. The case is clearer in the other kind as in transition I noted above 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic calix I demand to what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hic This does refer What it demonstrates and points at The text sets the substantive down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this cup that is the wine in this cup of this it is that he affirmed it to be the blood of the New Testament or the New Testament in his blood that is this is the sanction of the everlasting Testament I make it in my blood this is the Symbol what I do now in sign I will do to morrow in substance and you shall for ever after remember and represent it thus in Sacrament I cannot devise what to say plainer than that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 points at the chalice Hoc potate merum So Juvencus a Priest of Spain in the reign of Constantine Drink this wine But by the way this troubled some body and therefore an order was taken to corrupt the words by changing them into Hunc potate meum but that the cheat was too apparent And if it be so of one kind it is so in both that is beyond all question Against this Bellarmine brings argumentum robustissimum a most robustious argument By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or cup cannot be meant the wine in the cup because it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which was shed for you referring to the cup for the word can agree with nothing but the cup therefore by the cup is meant not wine but blood for that was poured out To this I oppose these things 1. Though it does not agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet it must refer to it and is an ordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of case called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is not unusual in the best masters of Language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Demosthenes so also Goclenius in his Grammatical problemes observes another out of Cicero Benè autem dicere quod est peritè loqui non habet definitam aliquam regionem cujus terminis septa teneatur Many more he cites out of Plato Homer and Virgil and me thinks these men should least of all object this since in their Latin Bible Sixtus Senensis confesses and all the world knows there are innumerable barbarisms and improprieties hyperbata and Antipâ—oses But in the present case it is easily supplyed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is frequently understood and implyed in the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in my bloud which is shed for you 2. If it were referred to cup then the figure were more strong and violent and the expression less litteral and therefore it makes much against them who are undone if you admit figurative expressions in the institution of this Sacrament 3. To what can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refer but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cup and let what sence soever be affixed to it afterwards if it do not suppose a figure then there is no such thing as figures or words or truth or things 4. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears by S. Matthew and S. Mark where the word is directly applyed to bloud S. Paul uses not the word and Bellarmine himself gives the rule verba Domini rectiùs exposita à Marco c. When one Evangelist is plain by him we are to expound another that is not plain and S. Basil in his reading of the words either following some ancienter Greek copy or else mending it out of the other Evangelists changes the case into perfect Grammar and good Divinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6. Thirdly symbols of the blessed Sacrament are called bread and the cup after Consecration that is in the whole use of them This is twice affirmed by S. Paul The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communication so it should be read of the bloud of Christ the bread which we break is it not the communication of the body of Christ as if he had said This bread is Christs body though there be also this mystery in it This bread is the communication of Christs body that is the exhibition and donation of it not Christs body formally but virtually and effectively it makes us communicate with Christs body in all the effects and benefits A like expression we have in Valerius Maximus where Scipio in the feast of Jupiter is said Graccho Communicasse concordiam that is consignasse he communicated concord he consigned it with the sacrifice giving him peace and friendship the benefit of that communication and so is the cup of benediction that is when the cup is blessed it communicates Christs blood and so does the blessed bread for to eat the bread in the New Testament is the sacrifice of Christians they are the words of S. Austin Omnes de uno pane participamus so S. Paul we all partake of this one bread Hence the argument is plain That which is broken is the communication of Christs body But that which is broken is bread therefore bread is the communication of Christs body The bread which we break those are the words 7. Fourthly The other place of S. Paul is plainer yet Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. And so often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye declare the Lords death till he come and the same also vers 27. three times in this chapter he calls the Eucharist Bread It is bread sacramental bread when the communicant eats it But he that in the Church of Rome should call to the Priest to give him a piece of bread would quickly find that instead of bread he should have a stone or something as bad But S. Paul had a little of the Macedonian simplicity calling things by their own plain names 8. Fifthly against this some little things are pretended in answer by the Roman Doctors 1. That the holy Eucharist or the sacred body is called bread because it is made of bread as Eve is
called of Adam bone of his bone and the rods changed into serpents are still called rods or else because it sometimes was bread therefore so it is called after just as we say The blind see the lame walk the harlots enter into the kingdome of heaven Which answer although Bellarmine mislikes yet lest any others should be pleased with it I have this certain confutation of it that by the Roman Doctrine the bread is wholly annihilated and nothing of the bread becomes any thing of the holy body and the holy body never was bread not so much as the matter of bread remaining in the change It cannot therefore be called bread unless it be bread at least not for this reason For if the body of Christ be not bread then neither ever was it bread neither was it made of bread and therefore these cannot be the reasons because they are not true But in the instances alledged the denomination still remains because the change was made in the same remaining matter or in the same person or they were to be so again as they were before nothing of which can be affirmed of the Eucharist by their doctrine therefore these instances are not pertinent 2. Others answer that the holy Body is called Bread because it seems to be so just as the effigies and forms of Pomegranates of Bulls of Serpents of Cherubims are called by the names of those creatures whom they do resemble I reply that well they may because there is there no danger of being deceived by such appellations no man will suppose them other than the pictures and so to speak is usual and common But in the matter of the holy Eucharist it ought not to be called bread for the likeness to bread unless it were bread indeed because such likeness and such appellation are both of them a temptation against that which these men call an article of faith but rather because it is like bread and all the world are apt to take it for such it ought to have been described with caution and affirmed to be Christ and God and not to be bread though it seem so But when it is often called Bread in Scripture which name the Church of Rome does not at all use in the mystery and is never called in Scripture the Son of God or God or Christ which words the Church of Rome does often use in the mystery it is certain that it is called bread not because it is like bread but because it is so indeed * And indeed upon such an answer as this it is easie to affirm an apple to be a Pigeon and no apple for if it be urged that all the world calls it an apple it may be replyed then as now It is true they call it an apple because it is like an apple but indeed it is a Pigeon 3. Some of them say when it is called bread it is not meant that particular kind of nourishment but in general it means any food and so only represents Christs body as a celestial divine thing intended some way to be our food Just as in S. John 6. Christ is called the bread that came down from heaven not meaning material bread but divine nourishment But this is the weakest of all because this which is called bread is broken is eaten hath the accidents of bread and all the signs of his proper nature and it were a strange violence that it should here signify any manner of food to which it is not like and not signify that to which it is so like * Besides this bread here signifies as wine or chalice does in the following words now that did signifie the fruit of the Vine that special manner of drink Christ himself being the Interpreter and therefore so must this mean that special manner of food 9. Sixthly If after the blessing the bread doth not remain but as they affirm be wholly annihilated then by blessing God destroys a creature which indeed is a strange kind of blessing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When God blesses he confirms his words with deeds and gives all sorts of good to that which he blesses And certain it is that although blessing can change it it must yet change it to the better and so we affirm he does for the bread besides the natural being by being blessed becomes the body of Christ in a sacramental manner but then it must remain bread still or else it receives not that increase and change but if it be annihilated and becomes nothing it is not Christs body in any sence nor in any sence can pretend to be blessed To which add the words of S. Austin Ille ad quem non esse non pertinet non est causa deficiendi id est tendendi ad non esse He that is the fountain of all being is not the cause of not being much less can his blessing cause any thing not to be It follows therefore that by blessing the bread becomes better but therefore it still remains 10. Seventhly That it is bread of which Christ affirmed This is my body and that it is bread after consecration was the doctrine of the Fathers in the Primitive Church I begin with the words of a whole Council of Fathers In Trullo at Constantinople decreeing thus against the Aquarii In Sanctis nihil plus quà m corpus Christi offeratur ut ipse dominus tradidit hoc est panis vinúm aquâ mixtum In the holy places or offices let nothing more be offered but the body of Christ as the Lord himself delivered that is bread and wine mingled with water So Justin Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are taught that the food made eucharistical the food which by change nourishes our flesh and bloud is the flesh and bloud of Jesus incarnate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we do not receive it as common bread No for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is made Sacramental and Eucharistical and so it is sublimed to become the body of Christ. But it is natural food still and that for two reasons 1. Because still he calls it bread not common bread but extraordinary yet bread still Card. Perron says it follows not to say it is not common bread therefore it is bread so as of those which appeared as men to Abraham we might say they were not common men but it follows not that they were men at all So the Holy Ghost descending like a Dove upon the blessed Jesus was no common Dove and yet it follows not it was a Dove at all I reply to this that of whatsoever you can say it is extraordinary in his kind of that you may also affirm it to be of that kind as concerning the richest scarlet if you say this is no ordinary colour you suppose it to be a colour so the Corinthian brass was no common brass and the Colossus was no common Statue and Christmas day is no
blessed Saviour Whatsoever entereth into the mouth goeth into the belly and is cast forth into the draught meaning that all food that is taken by the mouth hath for his share the fortune of the belly and indeed manducation and ejection are equally deminutions of any perfect thing and because it cannot without blasphemy be spoken that the natural body of Christ ought or can suffer ejection neither can it suffer manducation To this Bellarmine weakly answers that these words of Christ are only true of that which is taken to nourish the body which saying of his is not true for if it be taken to purge the body or to make the body sick or to make it lean or to minister to lust or to chastise the body as those who in pennances have masticated aloes and other bitter gums yet still it is cast into the draught 2. But suppose his meaning true yet this argument will not so be put off because although the end of receiving the blessed Sacrament is not to nourish the body yet that it does nourish the body is affirmed by Irenaeus Justin Martyr and others of which I have already given an account To which I here add the plain words of Rabanus Illud corpus Christi in nos convertitur dum id manducamus bibimus That body is chang'd into us when we eat it and drink it and therefore although it hath a higher purpose yet this also cannot be avoided 3. Either we may manducate the accidents only or else the substance of bread or the substance of Christs body If we manducate only the accidents then how do we eat Christs body If we manducate bread then 't is capable of all the natural alterations and it cannot be denied But if we manducate Christs body after a natural manner what worse thing is it that it descends into the guts than that it goes into the stomach to be cast forth than to be torn in pieces with the teeth as I have proved that it is by the Roman Doctrine Now I argue thus if we eat Christs natural body we eat it either Naturally or Spiritually if it be eaten only Spiritually then it is Spiritually digested and is Spiritual nourishment and puts on accidents and affections Spiritual But if the natural body be eaten naturally then what hinders it from affections and transmutations natural 4. Although Algerus and out of him Bellarmine would have Christians stop their ears against this argument and so would I against that doctrine of which these fearful conclusions are unavoidable consequents yet it is disputed in the Summa Angelica and an instance or case put which to my sence seems no inconsiderable argument to reprove the folly of this doctrine For saith he what if the Species pass indigested into the belly from the stomach He answers that they were not meat if they did not nourish and therefore it is probable as Boetius says that the body of our Lord does not go into the draught though the Species do And yet it is determined by the Gloss on the Canon Law that as long as the species remain uncorrupted the holy body is there under those Species and therefore may be vomited and consequently ejected all ways by which the Species can pass unalter'd Eousque progreditur corpus quousque species said Harpsfield in his disputation at Oxford If these things be put together viz. the body is there so long as the Species are uncorrupted and the Species may remain uncorrupted till they be cast upwards or downwards as in case of sickness it follows that in this case which is a case easily contingent by their doctrine the holy body must pass in latrinam And what then it is to be ador'd as a true Sacrament though it come from impure places though it be vomited So said Vasquez and it is the prevailing opinion in their Church Add to this that if this nourishment does not descend and cleave to the guts of the Priest it is certain that God does not hear his prayers for he is enjoyned by the Roman Missal published by authority of the Council of Trent and the command of Pope Pius the Fourth to pray Corpus tuum domine quod sumpsi sanguis quem potavi adhaereat visceribus meis Let thy body O Lord which I have taken and the blood which I have drunk cleave to my bowels It seems indeed they would have it go no further to prevent the inconveniences of the present argument but certain it is that if they intended it for a figurative speech it was a bold one and not so fitted for edification as for an objection But to return This also was the argument of Origen Quod si quicquid ingreditur in os in ventrem abit in secessum ejicitur ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei perque obsecrationem juxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum ejicitur haec quidem de typico symbolicóque corpore He plainly distinguishes the material part from the spiritual in the Sacrament and affirms that according to the material part that meat that is sanctified by the word of God and prayer enters into the mouths descends into the belly and goes forth in the natural ejection And this is only true of the typical and symbolical body Now besides that it affirms the words of our blessed Saviour to have effect in the Sacrament he affirms that the material part the type and symbols are the body of Christ that is his body is present in a typical and symbolical manner This is the plain and natural sence of the words of Origen But he must not mean what he means if he says any thing in an other place that may make for the Roman opinion And this is their way of answering objections brought from the Fathers they use to oppose words to words and conclude they must mean their meaning or else they contradict themselves And this trick Bellarmine uses frequently and especially Cardinal Perron and from them the lesser Writers And so it happens in this present argument for other words of Origen are brought to prove he inclined to the Roman opinion But I demand are the words more contradictory if they be both drawn to a spiritual sence than if they be both drawn to a natural 2. Though we have no need to make use of it yet it is no impossible thing that the Fathers should contradict one another and themselves too as you may see pretended violently by Cardinal Perron in his answer to K. James 3. But why must all sheaves bow to their sheaf and all words be wrested to their fancy when there are no words any where pretended from them but with less wresting than these must suffer for them they will be brought to speak against them or at least nothing for them But let us see what other words Origen hath by which we must expound
these 4. Origen says that the Christian people drinketh the blood of Christ and the flesh of the word of God is true food What then so say we too but it is Spiritual food and we drink the blood Spiritually He says nothing against that but very much for it as I have in several places remarked already 5. But how can this expound the other words Christian people eat Christs flesh and drink his blood therefore when Origen says the material part the Symbolical body of Christ is eaten naturally and cast into the draught he means not the body of Christ in his material part but the accidents of bread the colour the taste the quantity these are cast out by the belly Verily a goodly argument if a man could guess in what mood and figure it could conclude 6. When a man speaks distinctly and particularly it is certain he is easier to be understood in his particular and minute meaning than when he speaks generally But here he distinguishes a part from a part one sence from another the body in one sence from the body in another therefore these words are to expound the more general and not they to expound these unless the general be more particular than that that is distinguished into kinds that is unless the general be a particular and the particular be a general 7. Amalarius was so amus'd with these words and discourse of Origen that his understanding grew giddy and he did not know whether the body of Christ were invisibly taken up into Heaven or kept till our death in the body or expired at letting of blood or exhal'd in air or spit out or breath'd forth our Lord saying That which enters into the mouth descends into the belly and so goes forth into the draught The man was willing to be of the new opinion of the Real Presence because it began to be the mode of the Age. But his folly was soberly reproved by a Synod at Carisiacum about the time of Pope Gregory the Fourth where the difficulty of Origens argument was better answered and the Article determined that the bread and wine are spiritually made the body of Christ which being a meat of the mind and not of the belly is not corrupted but remaineth unto everlasting life 8. To expound these words of the accidents of bread only and say that they enter into the belly and go forth in the draught is a device of them that care not what they say for 1. It makes that the ejectamentum or excrement of the body should consist of colour and quantity without any substance 2. It makes a man to be nourished by accidents and so not only one substance to be changed into another but that accidents are changed into substances which must be if they nourish the body and pass in latrinam and then beyond the device of Transubstantiation we have another production from Africa a transaccidentisubstantiation a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. It makes accidents to have all the affections of substances as motion substantial corruption alteration that is not to be accidents but substances For matter and form are substances and those that integrate all physical and compound substances but till yesterday it was never heard that accidents could Yea but magnitude is a material quality and ground or subject of the accidents So it is said but it is nonsence For besides that magnitude is not a quality but a quantity neither can it be properly or truly said to be material but imperfectly because it is an affection of matter and however it is a contradiction to say that it is the ground of qualities for an accident cannot be the fundamentum the ground or subject of an accident that is the formality and definition of a substance as every young scholar hath read in Aristotles Categories so that to say that it is the ground of accidents is to say that accidents are subjected in magnitude that is that magnitude is neither a quantity nor quality but a substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An accident always subsists in a subject says Porphyrie 9. This answer cannot be fitted to the words of Origen for that which he calls the quid materiale or the material part in the Sacrament he calls it the Symbolical body which cannot be affirmed of accidents because there is no likeness between the accidents the colour the shape the figure the roundness the weight the magnitude of the host or wafer and Christs body and therefore to call the accidents a Symbolical body is to call it an unsymbolical Symbol an unlike similitude a representment without analogy But if he means the consecrated bread the whole action of consecration distribution sumption manducation this is the Symbolical body according to the words of S. Paul He that drinks this cup and eats this bread represents the Lords death it is the figure of Christs crucified body of his passion and our redemption 10. It is a strange expression to call accidents a body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Aristotle a body may be called white but the definition or reason of the accident can never be affirmed of a body I conclude that this argument out of the words of our blessed Saviour urged also and affirmed by Origen do prove that Christs body is in the Sacrament only to be eaten in a Spiritual sence not at all in a Natural lest that consequent be the event of it which to affirm of Christs glorified body in the natural and proper sence were very blasphemy 2. The next argument from Scripture is taken from Christs departing from this world his going from us the ascension of his body and soul into Heaven his not being with us his being contained in the Heavens So said our blessed Saviour Vnless I go hence the Comforter cannot come and I go to prepare a place for you The poor ye have always but me ye have not always S. Peter affirms of him that the Heavens must receive him till the time of restitution of all things Now how these things can be true of Christ according to his humane nature that is a circumscribed body and a definite soul is the question And to this the answer is the same in effect which is given by the Roman Doctors and by the Vbiquitaries whom they call Hereticks These men say Christs humane nature is every where actually by reason of his hypostatical union with the Deity which is every where the Romanists say no it is not actually every where but it may be where and is in as many places as he please for although he be in Heaven yet so is God too and yet God is upon earth eodem modo says Bellarmine in the same manner the Man Christ although he be in Heaven yet also he can be out of Heaven where he please he can be in Heaven and out of Heaven Now these two opinions are concentred in the main impossibility that is that Christs body can
does our faith do the same thing for if we believe him there the want of bodily sight is supplied by the eye of faith and the Spirit is pretended to do no more in this particular and then his presence also will be less necessary because supplied by our own act Add to this That if after Christs ascension into Heaven he still would have been upon Earth in the Eucharist and received properly into our mouths and in all that manner which these men dream how ready it had been and easie to have comforted them who were troubled for want of his bodily presence by telling them Although I go to Heaven yet fear not to be deprived of the presence of my body for you shall have it more than before and much better for I will be with you and in you I was with you in a state of humility and mortality now I will be with you with a daily and mighty miracle I before gave you promises of grace and glory but now I will become to your bodies a seed of immortality And though you will not see me but under a vail yet it is certain I will be there in your Churches in your pixes in your mouths in your stomachs and you shall believe and worship Had not this been a certain clear and proportionable comfort to their complaint and present necessity if any such thing were intended It had been so certain so clear so proportionable that it is more than probable that if it had been true it had not been omitted But that such sacred things as these may not be exposed to contempt by such weak propositions and their trifling consequents the case is plain that Christ being to depart hence sent his holy Spirit in substitution to supply to his Church the office of a Teacher which he on Earth in person was to his Disciples when he went from hence he was to come no more in person and therefore he sent his substitute and therefore to pretend him to be here in person though under a disguise which we see through with the eye of Faith and converse with him by presential adoration of his humanity is in effect to undervalue the real purposes and sence of all the sayings of Christ concerning his departure hence and the deputation of the holy Spirit But for this because it is naturally impossible they have recourse to the Divine Omnipotency God can do it therefore he does But of this I shall give particular account in the Section of Reason as also the other arguments of Scripture I shall reduce to their heads of proper matter SECT X. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against sense 1. THAT which is one of the firmest pillars upon which all humane notices and upon which all Christian Religion does rely cannot be shaken or if it be all Science and all Religion must be in danger Now beside that all our notices of things proceed from sense and our understanding receives his proper objects by the mediation of material and sensible phantasms and the soul in all her operations during this life is served by the ministeries of the body and the body works upon the soul only by sense besides this S. John hath placed the whole Religion of a Christian upon the certainty and evidence of sense as upon one unmoveable foundation That which was from the beginning which we have seen with our eyes which we have beheld and our hands have handled of the word of life And the life was made manifest and we have seen it and bear witness and declare unto you eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us which we have seen and heard we declare unto you Tertullian in his book de anima uses this very argument against the Marcionites Recita Johannis testationem quod vidimus inquit quod audivimus oculis nostris vidimus manus nostrae contrectaverunt de Sermone vitae Falsa utique testatio si oculorum aurium manuum sensus natura mentitur his testimony was false if eyes and ears and hands be deceived In Nature there is not a greater argument than to have heard and seen and handled Sed quia profundâ non licet luctarier Ratione tecum consulamus proxima Interrogetur ipsa naturalium Simplex sine arte sensuum sententia And by what means can an assent be naturally produced but by those instruments by which God conveys all notices to us that is by seeing and hearing Faith comes by hearing and evidence comes by seeing and if a man in his wits and in his health can be deceived in these things how can we come to believe Corpus enim per se communis deliquat esse Sensus quo nisi prima fides sundata valebit Haud erit occultis de rebus quo referentes Confirmare animi quicquam ratione queamus For if a Man or an Angel declares Gods will to us if we may not trust our hearing we cannot trust him for we know not whether indeed he says what we think he says and if God confirms the proposition by a miracle an ocular demonstration we are never the nearer to the believing him because our eyes are not to be trusted But if feeling also may be abused when a man is in all other capacities perfectly healthy then he must be governed by chance and walk in the dark and live upon shadows and converse with fantasms and illusions as it happens and then at last it will come to be doubted whether there be any such man as himself and whether he be awake when he is awake or not rather then only awake when he himself and all the world thinks him to have been asleep Oculatae sunt nostrae manus credunt quod vident 2. Now then to apply this to the present question in the words of S. Austin Quod ergo vidistis panis est calix quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renunciant That which our eyes have seen that which our hands have handled is bread we feel it taste it see it to be bread and we hear it called bread that very substance which is called the body of our Lord. Shall we now say our eyes are deceived our ears hear a false sound our taste is abused our hands are mistaken It is answered Nay our senses are not mistaken For our senses in health and due circumstances cannot be abused in their proper object but they may be deceived about that which is under the object of their senses they are not deceived in colour and shape and taste and magnitude which are the proper objects of our senses but they may be deceived in substances which are covered by these accidents and so it is not the outward sense so much as the inward sense that is abused For so Abraham when he saw an Angel in the shape of a humane body was not deceived in the shape of a man for there was such a shape
but yet it was not a man and therefore if he thought it was he was abused This is their answer and if this will not serve the turn nothing will This therefore must be examined 3. Now this instead of taking away the insuperable difficulty does much increase it and confesses the things which it ought to have avoided For 1. The accidents proper to a substance are for the manifestation and notice of the substance not of themselves for as the man feels but the means by which he feels is the sensitive faculty so that which is felt is the substance and the means by which it is felt is the accidents as the shape the colour the bigness the motion of a man are manifestative and declarative of a humane substance and if they represent a wrong substance then the sense is deceived by a false sign of a true substance or a true sign of a false substance as if an Alchymist should shew me brass colour'd like gold and made ponderous and so adulterated that it would endure the touchstone for a long while the deception is because there is a pretence of improper accidents true accidents indeed but not belonging to that substance But 2. It is true that is pretended that it is not so much the outward sense that is abused as the inward that is not so much the eye as the Man not the sight but the judgment and this is it we complain of For indeed in proper speaking the eye or the hand is not capable of being deceived but the man by the eye or by the ear or by his hand The eye sees a colour or a figure and the inward sense apprehends it to be the figure of such a substance and the understanding judges it to be the thing which is properly represented by the accident it is so or it is not so if it be there is no deception if it be not so then there is a cousenage there is no lye till it comes to a proposition either explicit or implicit a lye is not in the senses but when a man by the ministery of the senses is led into the apprehension of a wrong object or the belief of a false proposition then he is made to believe a lye and this is our case when accidents proper to one substance are made the cover of another to which they are not naturally communicable And in the case of the holy Sacrament the matter if it were as is pretended were intolerable For in the cases wherein a man is commonly deceived it is his own fault by passing judgment too soon as if he should judge Glass to be Crystal because it looks like it This is not any deception in the senses nor any injury to the man because he ought to consider more things than the colour to make his judgment whether it be Glass or Crystal or Diamond or Ice the hardness the weight and other things are to be ingredients in the sentence And if any two things had all the same accidents then although the senses were not deceived yet the man would certainly and inculpably mistake If therefore in the Eucharist as is pretended all the accidents of bread remain then all men must necessarily be deceived If only one or two did remain one sense would help the other and all together would rightly inform the understanding But when all the accidents remain they cannot but represent that substance to which those accidents are proper and then the holy Sacrament would be a constant irresistable deception of all the world in that in which all mens notices are most evident and most relied upon I mean their senses And then the question will not be whether our senses can be deceived or no But whether or no it can stand with the justice and goodness of God to be angry with us for believing our senses since himself hath so ordered it that we cannot avoid being deceived there being in this case as much reason to believe a lye as to believe a truth if things were so as they pretend The result of which is this That as no one sense can be deceived about his proper object but that a man may about the substance lying under those accidents which are the object proper to that sense because he gives sentence according to that representment otherwise than he ought and he ought to have considered other accidents proper to other senses in making the judgment as the birds that took the picture of grapes for very grapes and he that took the picture of a curtain for a very curtain and desired the Painter to draw it aside they made judgment of the grapes and the curtain only by colour and figure but ought to have considered the weight the taste the touch and the smell so on the other side if all the senses concur then not only is it true that the senses cannot be deceived about that object which is their own but neither ought the man to be deceived about that substance which lies under those accidents because their ministery is all that natural instrument of conveying notice to a mans understanding which God hath appointed 4. Just upon this account it is that S. Johns argument had been just nothing in behalf of the whole religion for that God was incarnate that Jesus Christ did such miracles that he was crucified that he rose again and ascended into Heaven that he preached these Sermons that he gave such commandments he was made to believe by sounds by shapes by figures by motions by likenesses and appearances of all the proper accidents and his senses could not be deceived about the accidents which were the proper objects of the senses but if they might be deceived about the substance under these accidents of what truth or substance could he be ascertain'd by their ministery for he indeed saw the shape of a humane body but it might so be that not the body of a man but an Angelical substance might lie under it and so the Article of the assumption of humane nature is made uncertain And upon the same account so are all the other Articles of our Faith which relied upon the verity of his body and nature all which if they are not sufficiently signified by their proper accidents could not be ever the more believed for being seen with the eyes and heard with the ears and handled with our hands but if they were sufficiently declared by their proper accidents then the understanding can no more be deceived in the substances lying under the accidents than the senses can in the accidents themselves 4. To the same purpose it was that the Apostles were answered concerning the Article of the truth of Christs resurrection For when the Apostles were affrighted at his sudden appearing and thought it had been a Spirit Christ called them to feel his hands and to shew that it was he For a spirit hath no flesh and bones as ye see me have plainly meaning that
reckoned and in others respersed over this Treatise But to return to the present objection it is observable that S. Cyril does not say it is not bread though the sense suppose it to be so for that would have supposed the taste to have been deceived which he affirms not and if he had we could not have believed him but he says though the sense perceive it to be bread so that it is still bread else the taste would not perceive it to be so but it is more and the sense does not perceive it for it is the body of our Lord here then is his own answer plainly opposed to the objection he says it is not bread that is it is not meer bread and so say we he says that it is the body of our Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the antitype of the Lords body and so say we He says the sense perceives it to be bread but it is more than the sense perceives so he implies and so we affirm and yet we may trust our sense for all that it tells us and our understanding too for all it learns besides The like to this are the words of S. Chrysostome where he says We cannot be deceived by his words but our sense is often deceived look not at what is before us but observe Christs words Nothing sensible is given to us but things insensible by things sensible c. This and many higher things than this are in S. Chrysostome not only relating to this but to the other Sacrament also Think not thou receivest the body from a man but fire from the tongue of a Seraphim that for the Eucharist and for Baptism this The Priest baptizes thee not but God holds thy head In the same sence that these admit in the same sence we may understand his other words they are Tragical and high but may have a sober sence but literally they sound a contradiction that nothing sensible should be given us in the Sacrament and yet that nothing insensible should be given but what is conveyed by things sensible but it is not worth the while to stay here Only this the words of S. Chrysostome are good counsel and such as we follow for in this case we do not finally rely upon sense or resolve all into it but we trust it only for so much as it ought to be trusted for but we do not finally rest upon it but upon faith and look not on the things proposed but attend to the words of Christ and though we see it to be bread we also believe it to be his body in that sence which he intended SECT XI The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason 1. WHEN we discourse of mysteries of Faith and Articles of Religion it is certain that the greatest reason in the world to which all other reasons must yield is this God hath said it therefore it is true Now if God had expresly said This which seems to be bread is my body in the natural sence or to that purpose there had been no more to be said in the affair all reasons against it had been but sophismes When Christ hath said This is my body no man that pretends to Christianity doubts of the truth of these words all men submitting their understanding to the obedience of Faith But since Christ did not affirm that he spake it in the natural sence but there are not only in Scripture many prejudices but in common sense much evidence against it if reason also protests against the Article it is the voice of God and to be heard in this question For Nunquam aliud natura aliud sapientia dicit And this the rather because there are so many ways to verifie the words of Christ without this strange and new doctrine of Transubstantiation that in vain will the words of Christ be pretended against reason whereas the words of Christ may be many ways verified if Transubstantiation be condemned as first if Picus Mirandula's proposition be true which in Rome he offered to dispute publickly that Paneitas possit suppositare corpus Domini which I suppose if it be expounded in sensible terms means that it may be bread and Christs body too or secondly if Luthers and the ancient Schoolmens way be true that Christs body be present together with the bread In that sence Christs words might be true though no Transubstantiation and this is the sence which is followed by the Greek Church 3. If Boquinus's way be true that between the bread and Christs body there were a communication of proprieties as there is between the Deity and humanity of our blessed Saviour then as we say God gave himself for us and the blessed Virgin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mother of God and God suffered and rose again meaning that God did it according to his assumed humanity so we may say this is Christs body by the communication of the Idioms or proprieties to the bread with which it is united 4. If our way be admitted that Christ is there after a real spiritual manner the words of Christ are true without any need of admitting Transubstantiation 5. I could instance in the way of Johannes Longus in his Annotations upon the second Apology of Justin Martyr Hoc est corpus meum that is My body is this that is is nourishment spiritual as this is Natural 6. The way of Johannes Caâ—panus would afford me a sixth instance Hoc est corpus meum that is meum as it is mea creatura 7. Johannes à Lasco Bucer and the Socinians refer hoc to the whole ministery and mean that to be representative of Christs body 8. If Rupertus the Abbots way were admitted which was confuted by Algerus and is almost like that of Boquinus that between Christs body and the consecrate symbols there was an hypostatical union then both substances would remain and yet it were a true proposition to affirm of the whole hypostasis this is the body of Christ. Many more I could reckon all which or any of which if it were admitted the words of Christ stand true and uncontradicted and therefore it is a huge folly to quarrel at them that admit not Transubstantiation and to say they deny the words of Christ. And therefore it must not now be said Reason is not to be heard against an Article of Faith for that this is an Article of Faith cannot nakedly be inferred from the words of Christ which are capable of so many meanings Therefore reason in this case is to be heard by them that will give a reason of their faith as it is commanded in Scripture much less is that to be admitted which Fisher or Flued the Jesuit was bold to say to King James that because Transubstantiation seems so much against reason therefore it is to be admitted as if faith were more faith for being against reason Against this for the present I shall oppose the excellent words of S. Austin
Ep. 7. Si manifestissimae certaeque rationi velut Scripturarum Sanctarum objicitur authoritas non intelligit qui hoc facit non Scripturarum illarum sensum ad quem penetrare non potuit sed suum potiùs objicit veritati nec quod in eis sed quod in seipso velut pro eis invenit opponit He that opposes the authority of the holy Scriptures against manifest and certain reason does neither understand himself nor the Scripture Indeed when God hath plainly declared the particular the more it seems against my reasons the greater is my obedience in submitting but that is because my reasons are but Sophismes since truth it self hath declared plainly against them but if God hath not plainly declared against that which I call reason my reason must not be contested by a pretence of Faith but upon some other account Ratio cum ratione concertet 3. Secondly But this is such a fine device that it can if it be admitted warrant any literal interpretation against all the pretences of the world For when Christ said If thy right eye offend thee pluck it out Here are the plain words of Christ And Some make themselves Eunuches for the kingdom of Heaven Nothing plainer in the Grammatical sence and why do we not do it because it is an unnatural thing to mangle our body for a Spiritual cause which may be supplied by other more gentle instruments Yea but reason is not to be heard against the plain words of Christ and the greater our reason is against it the greater excellency in our obedience that as Abraham against hope believed in hope so we against reason may believe in the greatest reason the Divine revelation and what can be spoken against this 4. Thirdly Stapleton confuting Luthers opinion of Consubstantiation pretends against it many absurdities drawn from reason and yet it would have been ill taken if it should have been answered that the doctrine ought the rather to be believed because it is so unreasonable which answer is something like our new Preachers who pretend that therefore they are Spiritual men because they have no learning they are to confound the wise because they are the weak things of the world and that they are to be heard the rather because there is the less reason they should so crying stinking fish that men may buy it the more greedily But I will proceed to the particulars of reason in this Article being contented with this that if the adverse party shall refuse this way of arguing they may be reproved by saying they refuse to hear reason and it will not be easie for them in despite of reason to pretend faith for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unreasonable men and they that have not faith are equivalent in S. Pauls expression 5. First I shall lay this prejudice in the Article as relating to the discourses of reason that in the words of institution there is nothing that can be pretended to prove the conversion of the substance of bread into the body of Christ but the same will infer the conversion of the whole into the whole and therefore of the accidents of the bread into the accidents of the body And in those little pretences of Philosophy which these men sometimes make to cousen fools into a belief of the possibility they pretend to no instance but to such conversions in which if the substance is changed so also are the accidents sometimes the accident is chang'd in the same remaining substance but if the substance be changed the accidents never remain the same individually or in kind unless they be symbolical that is are common to both as in the change of elements of air into fire of water into earth Thus when Christ changed water into wine the substances being chang'd the accidents also were alter'd and the wine did not retain the colour and taste of water for then though it had been the stranger miracle that wine should be wine and yet look and taste like water yet it would have obtained but little advantage to his doctrine and person if he should have offer'd to prove his mission by such a miracle For if Christ had said to the guests To prove that I am come from God I will change this water into wine well might this prove his mission but if while the guests were wondring at this he should proceed and say wonder ye not at this for I will do a stranger thing than it for this water shall be changed into wine and yet I will so order it that it shall look like water and taste like it so that you shall not know one from the other Certainly this would have made the whole matter very ridiculous and indeed it is a strange device of these men to suppose God to work so many prodigious miracles as must be in Transubstantiation if it were at all and yet that none of these should be seen for to what purpose is a miracle that cannot be perceived It can prove nothing nor do any thing when it self is not known whether it be or no. When bread is turned into flesh and wine into blood in the nourishment of our bodies which I have seen urg'd for the credibility of Transubstantiation The bread as it changes his nature changes his accidents too and is flesh in colour and shape and dimensions and weight and operation as well as it is in substance Now let them rub their foreheads hard and tell us it is so in the holy Sacrament For if it be not so then no instance of the change of Natural substances from one form to another can be pertinent For 1. Though it be no more than is done in every operation of a body yet it is always with change of their proper accidents and then 2. It can with no force of the words of the institution be pretended that one ought to be or can be without the other For he that says this is the body of a man says that it hath the substance of a humane body and all his consequents that is the accidents and he that says this is the body of Alexander says besides the substance that it hath all the individuating conditions which are the particular accidents and therefore Christ affirming this to be his body did as much affirm the change of accidents as the change of substance because that change is naturally and essentially consequent to this Now if they say they therefore do not believe the accidents of bread to be changed because they see them remain I might reply Why will they believe their sense against faith since there may be evidence but here is certainty and it cannot be deceived though our eyes can and it is certain that Christ affirmed it without distinction of one part from another of substance from his usual accidents This is my body Hoc Hîc Nunc and Sic. Now if they think their eyes may be credited for
all the words of our blessed Saviour why shall not their reason also or is it nothing so certain to the understanding as any thing is to the eye If therefore it be unreasonable to say that the accidents of bread are changed against our sense so it will be unreasonable to say that the substance is changed against our reason Not but that God can and does often change one substance into another and it is done in every natural production of a substantial form but that we say it is unreasonable that this should be changed into flesh not to flesh simply for so it is when we eat it nor into Christs flesh simply for so it might have been if he had as it is probable he did eaten the Sacrament himself But into that body of Christ which is in Heaven he remaining there and being whole and impassible and unfrangible this we say is unreasonable and impossible and that is now to be proved 6. Secondly In this question when our adversaries are to cousen any of the people they tell them the Protestants deny Gods omnipotency for so they are pleased to call our denying their dreams And this device of theirs to escape is older than their doctrine of Transubstantiation for it was the trick of the Manichees the Eutychians the Apollinarists the Arians when they were confuted by the arguments of the Catholicks to flye to Gods omnipotency 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Nazianzen and it was very usually by the Fathers called the Sanctuary of Hereticks Potentia inquiunt ei haec est ut falsa sint vera mendacis est ut falsum dicat verum quod Deo non competit saith S. Austin They pretend it to belong to Gods power to verifie their doctrine that is to make falshood truth that is not power but a lye which cannot be in God and this was older than the Arrians it was the trick of the old Tragedians So Plato told them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Cicero rendring says Cum explicare argumenti exitium non potestis confugitis ad Deum When you cannot bring your argument about you flye to the power of God But when we say this is impossible to be done either we mean it naturally or ordinarily impossible that is such a thing which cannot without a miracle be done as a child cannot with his hands break a giants arm or a man cannot eat a Milstone or with his finger touch the Moon Now in matters of Religion although to shew a thing to be thus impossible is not enough to prove it was not at all if God said it was for although to man it be impossible yet to God all things are possible yet when the question is of the sence of the words of Scripture which are capable of various interpretations he that brings an argument ab impossibili against any one interpretation shewing that it infers such an ordinary impossibility as cannot be done without a miracle hath sufficiently concluded not against the words for nothing ought to prejudice them but against such an interpretation as infers that impossibility Thus when in Scripture we find it recorded that Christ was born of a Virgin to say this is impossible is no argument against it because although it be naturally impossible which I think is demonstrable against the Arabian Physicians yet to him that said it it is also possible to do it But then if from hence any man shall obtrude as an Article of Faith that the blessed Virgin Mother was so a Virgin that her holy Son came into the world without any aperture of his mothers womb I doubt not but an argument ab impossibili is a sufficient conviction of the falshood of it though this impossibility be only an ordinary and natural because the words of Scripture affirming Christ to be born of a Virgin say only that he was not begotten by natural generation not that his egression from his Mothers womb made a Penetration of dimensions To instance once more The words of Scripture are plain That Christ is man That Christ is God Here are two natures and yet but one Christ No impossibility ought to be pretended against these plain words but they must be sophismes because they dispute against truth it self But now if a Monothelite shall say that by this unity of nature God hath taught an unity of wills in Christ and that he had but one will because he is but one person I do not doubt but an argument from an ordinary and natural impossibility will be sufficient to convince him of his heresie and in this case the Monothelite hath no reason to say that the Orthodox Christian denies Gods omnipotency and says that God cannot unite the will of Christs humanity to the will of his Divinity And this is true in every thing which is not declared minutely and in his particular sence There is ordinarily no greater argument in the world and none better is commonly used nor any better required than to reduce the opinion to an impossibility for if this be not true without a miracle you must prove your extraordinary and demonstrate your miracle which will be found to be a new impossibility A sence that cannot be true without a miracle to make it so it is a miracle if it be true and therefore let the literal sence in any place be presumed and have the advantage of the first offer or presumption yet if it be ordinarily impossible to be so and without a miracle cannot be so and the miracle no where affirmed then to affirm the literal sence is the hugest folly that can be in the interpretation of any Scriptures 7. But there is an impossibility which is absolute which God cannot do therefore because he is Almighty for to do them were impotency and want of power as God cannot lye he cannot be deceived he cannot be mock'd he cannot die he cannot deny himself nor do unjustly And I remember that Dionysius brings in by way of scorn Elymas the Sorcerer finding fault with S. Paul for saying God could not deny himself as if the saying so were denying Gods omnipotency so Elymas objected as is to be seen in the book de Divin Nom. c. 8. And by the consent of all the world it is agreed upon this expression That God cannot reconcile contradictions that is It is no part of the divine Omnipotency to make the same proposition true and false at the same time in the same respect It is absolutely impossible that the same thing should be and not be at the same time that the same thing so constituted in his own formality should lose the formality or essential affirmative and yet remain the same thing For it is absolutely the first truth that can be affirmed in Metaphysical notices Nothing can be and not be This is it in which all men and all Sciences and all religions are agreed upon as a prime truth in all sences and without distinctions For if any
thing could be and not be at the same time then there would be something whose being were not to be Nay Dominicus à Soto affirms expresly that not only things only cannot be done by God which intrinsecally formally and expresly infer two contradictories but those also which the understanding at the first proposal does by his natural light dissent from and can by no means admit because that which is so repugnant to the understanding naturally does suâ naturâ repugnare is impossible in the nature of things and therefore when it is said in S. Luke nothing is impossible with God it is meant Nothing is impossible but that which naturally repugnes to the understanding Now to apply this to the present question Our adversaries do not deny but that in the doctrine of Transubstantiation there are a great many impossibilities which are such naturally and ordinarily but by Divine power they can be done but that they are done they have no warrant but the plain literal sence of the words of Hoc est corpus meum Now this is so far from proving that God does work perpetual miracles to verifie their sence of it that the working of miracles ought to prove that to be the sence of it Now the probation of a proposition by miracles is an open thing clear as thunder and being a matter of sense and consequently more known than the thing which they intend to prove ought not to be proved by that which is the thing in question And therefore to say that God will work a miracle rather than his words should be false is certain but impertinent For concerning the words themselves there is no question and therefore now no more need of miracles to confirm them concerning the meaning of them is the question They say this is the meaning Quest. How do you prove it since there are so many impossibilities in it naturally and ordinarily Answ. Because God said it therefore it is true Resp. Yea that God said the words we doubt not but that his words are to be understood in your sence that I doubt because if I believe your sence I must admit many things ordinarily impossible Answ. Yea but nothing is impossible to God Resp. True nothing that can be done exceeds his power but supposing this absolutely possible yet how does it appear that God will do a miracle to verifie your sence which otherwise cannot be true when without a miracle the words may be true in many other sences Jam dic posthume for it is hard that men by a continual effort and violence should maintain a proposition against reason and his unquestionable maximes thinking it sufficient to oppose against it Gods omnipotency as if the crying out a miracle were a sufficient guard against all absurdity in the world as if the wisdom of God did arm his power against his truth and that it were a fineness of Spirit to be able to believe the two parts of a contradiction and all upon confidence of a miracle which they cannot prove And indeed it were something strange that thousands and thousands of times every day for above 1500 years together the same thing should be done and yet this should be called a miracle that is a daily extraordinary for by this time it would pass into nature and a rule and so become a supernatural natural event an extraregular rule an extraordinary ordinary a perpetual wonder that is a wonder and no wonder and therefore I may infer the proper corollaries of this argument in the words of Scotus whose opinion it was pity it could be overborn by tyranny 1. That the truth of the Eucharist may be saved without Transubstantiation And this I have already proved 2. The substance of bread under the accidents is more a nourishment than the accidents themselves and therefore more represents Christs body in the formality of Spiritual nourishment And indeed that I may add some weight to these words of Scotus which are very true and very reasonable 1. It cannot be told why bread should be chosen for the symbol of the body but because of his nourishing faculty and that the accidents should nourish without substance is like feeding a man with musick and quenching his thirst with a Diagram 2. It is fantastical and mathematical bread not natural which by the doctrine of Transubstantiation is represented on the table and therefore unfit to nourish or to typifie that which can 3. Painted bread might as well be symbolical as the real if the real bread become no bread for then that which remains is nothing but the accidents as colour and dimensions c. But Scotus proceeds 3. That understanding of the words of institution that the substance of bread is not there seems harder to be maintained and to it more inconveniences are consequent than by putting the substance of bread to be there 4. Lastly It is a wonder why in one Article which is not a principal Article of faith such a sence should be affirmed for which faith is exposed to the contempt of all that follow reason and all this is because iâ— Transubstantiation there are many natural and ordinary impossibilities In hâ—c conversione sunt plura difficiliora quà m in creatione said Aquinas There are more difficulties in this conversion of the Sacrament than in the whole Creation 9. But then because we are speaking concerning what may be done by God it ought to be considered that it is rash and impudent to say that the body of Christ cannot by the power of God who can do all things be really in the Sacrament without the natural conversion of bread into him God can make that the body of Christ should be de novo in the Sacrament of the Altar without any change of it self and without the change of any thing into it self yet some change being made about the bread or something else They are the words of Durand Cannot God in any sence make this proposition true This bread is the body of Christ or this is bread and Christs body too If they say he cannot then it is a clear case who it is that denies Gods omnipotency If God can then how will they be able from the words of Scripture to prove Transubstantiation This also would be considered 10. But now concerning impossibilities if it absolutely can be evinc'd that this doctrine of Transubstantiation does affirm contradictions then it is not only an intolerable prejudice against the doctrine as is the ordinary and natural impossibility but it will be absolutely impossible to be true and it derogates from God to affirm such a proposition in religion and much more to adopt it into the body of faith And therefore when S. Paul had quoted that place of Scripture He hath put all things under him he adds It is evident that he is excepted who did put all things under him for if this had not been so understood then he should have been under himself and he
that gave the power should be lessened and be inferiour to him that received it which because they infer impossibilities like those which are consequent to Transubstantiation S. Paul makes no more of it but to say The contrary is manifest against the unlimited literal sence of the words Now for the eviction of this these two mediums are to be taken The one that this doctrine affirms that of the essence or existence of a thing which is contrary to the essence or existence of it and yet that the same thing remains that is that the essence remains without the essence that is without it self The other that this doctrine makes a thing to be and not to be at the same time I shall use them both but promiscuously because they are reducible to one 11. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against the nature and essence of a body Bellarmine seems afraid of this for immediately before he goes about to prevaricate about the being of a body in many places at once he says that if the essence of things were evidently and particularly known then we might know what does and what does not imply a contradiction but id non satis constat there is no certainty of that by that pretended uncertainty making way as he hopes to escape from all the pressure of contradictions that lye upon the prodigious philosophy of this Article But we shall make a shift so far to understand the essence of a body as to evince this doctrine to be full of contradictions 12. First For Christs body his Natural body is changed into a Spiritual body and it is not now a Natural body but a Spiritual and therefore cannot be now in the Sacrament after a natural manner because it is so no where and therefore not there It is sown a natural body it is raised a Spiritual body And therefore though this Spirituality be not a change of one substance into another yet it is so a change of the same substance that it hath lost all those accidents which were not perfective nor constitutive but imperfect and separable from the body and therefore in no sence of nature can it be manducated And here is the first contradiction The body of Christ is the Sacrament The same body is in Heaven In Heaven it cannot be broken naturally In the Sacrament they say it is broken naturally and properly therefore the same body is and is not it can and it cannot be broken To this they answer that this is broken under the Species of bread Not in it self Well! is it broken or is it not broken let it be broken under what it will if it be broken the thing is granted For if being broken under the Species it be meant that the Species be broken alone and not the body of Christ then they take away in one hand when they reach forth with the other This being a better argument The Species only are broken the Species are not Christs body therefore Christs body is not broken better I say than this The body of Christ is under the Species the Species alone are broken therefore the body of Christ is broken For how can the breaking of Species or accidents infer the breaking of Christs body unless the accidents be Christs body or inseparable from it or rather How can the breaking of the accidents infer the breaking of Christs body when it cannot be broken To this I desire a clear and intelligible answer Add to this how can Species that is accidents be broken but when a substance is broken for an accident properly such as smell colour taste hath of it self no solid and consistent nor indeed any fluid parts nothing whereby it can be broken and have a part divided from a part but as the substance in which the accident is subjected becomes divided so do the inherent accidents but no otherwise and if this cannot be admitted men cannot know what one another say or mean they can have no notices of things or regular propositions 13. Secondly But I demand When we speak of a body what we mean by it For in all discourses and entercourses of mankind by words we must agree concerning each others meaning when we speak of a body of a substance of an accident what does mankind agree to mean by these words All the Philosophers and all the wise men in the world when they divide a substance from an accident mean by a substance that which can subsist in it self without a subject of inherence But an accident is that whose very essence is to be in another When they speak of a body and separate it from a Spirit they mean that a Spirit is that which hath no material divisible parts physically that which hath nothing of that which makes a body that is extension limitation by lines and superficies and material measures The very first notion and conception of things teaches all men that what is circumscribed and measured by his proper place is there and no where else For if it could be there and be in another place it were two and not one A finite Spirit can be but in one place but it is there without circumscription that is it hath no parts measured by the parts of a place but is there after another manner than a body that is it is in every part of his definition or spiritual location So it is said a soul is in the whole body not that a part of it is in the hand and a part of it in the eye but it is whole in the whole and whole in every part and it is true that it is so if it be wholly immaterial because that which is spiritual and immaterial cannot have material parts But when we speak of a body all the world means that which hath a finite quantity and is determin'd to one place This was the philosophy of all the world taught in all the Schools of the Christians and Heathens even of all mankind till the doctrine of Transubstantiation was to be nursed and maintained and even after it was born it could not be forgotten by them who were bound to keep it And I appeal to any man of the Roman perswasion if they can shew me any ancient Philosopher Greek or Roman or Christian of any Nation who did not believe it to be essential to the being of a body to be in one place and Amphitruo in the old Comedy had reason to be angry with Sofia upon this point Tun ' id dicere audes quod nemo unquam homo antehac vidit nec potest fieri tempore uno Homo idem duobus locis ut simul sit And therefore to make the body of Christ to be in a thousand places at once and yet to be but one body To be in Heaven and to be upon so many Altars to be on the Altar in so many round Wafers is to make a body to be a spirit and to make a finite to be infinite
against the Article it self although they are most easily answered yet as they bring them against the minutiae and impertinences of the School they are not so easily to be avoided But 4. There is not the same reason because concerning God we know but very few things and concerning the mysterious Trinity that which is revealed is extremely little and it is general without descending to particulars and the difficulty of the seeming arguments against that being taken from our Philosophy and the common manner of speaking cannot be apportion'd and fitted to so great a secret neither can that at all be measur'd by any thing here below But I hope we may have leave to say we understand more concerning bodies and their nature than concerning the persons of the holy Trinity and therefore we may be sure in the matter of bodies to know what is and what is not possible when we can know no measure of truth or error in all the mysteriousnesses of so high and separate superexalted secrets as is that of the holy Trinity 5. Because when the Church for the understanding of this secret of the holy Trinity hath taken words from Metaphysical learning as person hypostasis consubstantiality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such like the words of themselves were apt to change their signification and to put on the sence of the present School But the Church was forc'd to use such words as she had the highest the nearest the most separate and mysterious But when she still kept these words to the same mystery the words swell'd or alter'd in their sence and were exacted according to what they did signifie amongst men in their low notices this begat difficulty in the doctrine of the holy Trinity For better words she had none and all that which they did signifie in our Philosophy could not be applied to this mystery and therefore we have found difficulty and shall for ever till in this Article the Church returns to her ancient simplicity of expression For these reasons I conceive the case is wholly different and the difficulty and secret of one mystery which is certainly revealed cannot warrant us to admit the impossibilities of that which is not revealed Let it appear that God hath affirm'd Transubstantiation and I for my part will burn all my arguments against it and make publick amends The like also is to be said in the matter of Incarnation 29. But if two bodies may be in one place then one body may be in two places Aquinas denies the consequent of this argument but I for my part am careless whether it be true or no. But I shall oppose against it this If two bodies cannot be in one commensurate place then one body cannot be in two places Now concerning this it is certain it implies a contradiction that two bodies should be in one place or possess the place of another till that be cast forth Quod nisi inania sint quâ possent corpora quaeque Transire hand ullâ fieri ratione videres And the great dispute between the Scholars of Epicurus and the Peripateticks concerning vacuity was wholly upon this account Epicurus saying there could be no motion unless the place were empty All the other Sects saying that it was enough that it was made empty by the coming of the new body all agreeing that two bodies could not be together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All agreed that two bodies could not be together and that the first body must be thrust forth by the intromission of the second Quae si non esset inane Non tam sollicito motu privata carerent Quà m genita omninò nulla ratione fuissent Vndique materies quoniam stipata quiescet For the contrary says that two bodies are one For the proper dimensions of a quantitative body are length breadth and thickness Now the extension of the body in these dimensions is measured by the place For the place is nothing else but the measuring and limiting of the thing so measured and limited by these measures and limitations of length breadth and thickness Now if two bodies could be in one place then they must both have one superficies one length one thickness and then either the other hath none or they are but one body and not two or else though they be two bodies and have two superficies yet these two superficies are but one all which are contradictions Bellarmine says that to be coextended to a place is separable from a magnitude or body because it is a thing that is extrinsecal and consequent to the intrinsecal extension of parts and being later than it is by Divine power separable But this is as very a sophisme as all the rest For if what ever in nature i◠later than the substance be separable from it then fire may be without heat or water without moisture a man can be without time for that also is in nature after his essence and he may be without a faculty of will or understanding or of affections or of growing to his state or being nourished and then he will be a strange man who will neither have the power of will or understanding of desiring or avoiding of nourishment or growth or any thing that can distinguish him from a beast or a tree or a stone For these are all later than the essence for they are essential emanations from it Thus also quantity can be separated from a substantial body if every thing that is later than the form can be separated from it And therefore nothing of this can be avoided by saying to fill a place is an act but these other instances are faculties and powers and therefore the act may better be impeded by Divine power the thing remaining the same than by the ablation of faculties This I say cannot justifie the trick 1. Because to be extended into parts is as much an act as to be in a place and yet that is inseparable from magnitude and so confessed by Bellarmine 2. To be in a place is not an act at all any more than to be created to be finite to be limited and it was never yet heard of that esse locatum or esse in loco was reducible to the predicament of action 3. An act is no more separable than a faculty is when the act is as essential as the faculty now for a body to be in a place is as essential to a body as it is for a man to have understanding for this is confessed to be separable by Divine power and the other cannot be more it cannot be naturally 4. If to be in a place be an act it is no otherwise an act than it is an act for a Father actually to have a son and therefore is no more separable this than that and you may as well suppose a Father and no child as a body and no place 5. It is a false proposition to say that place is
to have been the established resolved doctrine of the Primitive Church this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not necessary Because although no argument can prove it Catholick but a consent yet if some as learned as holy as orthodox do dissent it is enough to prove it not to be Catholick As a proposition is not universal if there be one or three or ten exceptions but to make it universal it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must take in all 2. Secondly None of the Fathers speak words exclusive of our way because our way contains a Spiritual sence which to be true our adversaries deny not but say it is not sufficient but there ought to be more But their words do often exclude the way of the Church of Rome and are not so capable of an answer for them 3. Thirdly When the saying of a Father is brought out of which his sence is to be drawn by argument and discourse by two or three remote uneasie consequences I do not think it fit to take notice of those words either for or against us because then his meaning is as obscure as the article it self and therefore he is not fit to be brought in interpretation of it And the same also is the case when the words are brought by both sides for then it is a shrewd sign the Doctor is not well to be understood or that he is not fit in those words to be an umpire and of this Cardinal Perron is a great example who spends a volume in folio to prove S. Austin to be of their side in this article or rather not to be against them 4. Fourthly All those testimonies of Fathers which are as general indefinite and unexpounded as the words of Scripture which are in question must in this question pass for nothing and therefore when the Fathers say that in the sacrament is the body and blood of Christ that there is the body of our Lord that before consecration it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meer bread but after consecration it is verily the body of Christ truly his flesh truly his blood these and the like sayings are no more than the words of Christ This is my body and are only true in the same sence of which I have all this while been giving an account that is by a change of condition of sanctification and usage We believe that after consecration and blessing it is really Christs body which is verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lords Supper And upon this account we shall find that many very many of the authorities of the Fathers commonly alledged by the Roman Doctors in this question will come to nothing For we speak their sence and in their own words the Church of England expressing this mystery frequently in the same forms of words and we are so certain that to eat Christs body Spiritually is to eat him really that there is no other way for him to be eaten really than by Spiritual manducation 5. Fifthly when the Fathers in this question speak of the change of the Symbols in the holy Sacrament they sometimes use the words of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Church conversion mutation transition migration transfiguration and the like in the Latin but they by these do understand accidental and Sacramental conversions not proper natural and substantial Concerning which although I might refer the Reader to see it highly verified in David Blondels familiar elucidations of the Eucharistical controversie yet a shorter course I can take to warrant it without my trouble or his and that is by the confession of a Jesuit and of no mean same or learning amongst them The words of Suarez whom I mean are these Licet antiqui Pp. c. Although the ancient Fathers have used divers names yet all they are either general as the names of conversion mutation transition or else they are more accommodated to an accidental change as the name of Transfiguration and the like only the name of Transelementation which Theophylact did use seems to approach nearer to signify the propriety of this mystery because it signifies a change even of the first elements yet that word is harder and not sufficiently accommodate For it may signify the resolution of one element into another or the resolution of a mixt body into the elements He might have added another sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Transelementation For Theophylact uses the same word to express the change of our bodies to the state of incorruption and the change that is made in the faithful when they are united unto Christ. But Suarez proceeds But Transubstantiation does most properly and appositely signifie the passage and conversion of the whole substance into the whole substance So that by this discourse we are quitted and made free from the pressure of all those authorities of the Fathers which speak of the mutation conversion transition or passage or transelementation transfiguration and the like of the bread into the body of Christ these do or may only signifie an accidental change and come not home to their purpose of Transubstantiation and it is as if Suarez had said the words which the Fathers use in this question make not for us and therefore we have made a new word for our selves and obtruded it upon all the world But against it I shall only object an observation of Bellarmine that is not ill The liberty of new words is dangerous in the Church because out of new words by little and little new things arise while it is lawful to coyn new words in divine affairs 6. Sixthly To which I add this that if all the Fathers had more unitedly affirmed the conversion of the bread into Christs body than they have done and had not explicated their meaning as they have done indeed yet this word would so little have help'd the Roman cause that it would directly have overthrown it For in their Transubstantiation there is no conversion of one thing into another but a local succession of Christs body into the place of bread A change of the Vbi was not used to be called a substantial conversion But they understood nothing of our present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were not used to such curious nothings and intricate falshoods and artificial nonsence with which the Roman Doctors troubled the world in this question But they spake wholly another thing and either they did affirm a substantial change or they did not If they did not then it makes nothing for them or against us But if they did mean a proper substantial change then for so much as it comes to it makes against us but not for them for they must mean a change of one substance into another by conversion or a change of substances by substitution of one in the place of another If they meant the latter then it was no conversion of one into another and then they expressed not what they meant
for conversion which was their word could signifie nothing of that But if they meant the change of substance into substance properly by conversion then they have confuted the present doctrine of Transubstantiation which though they call a substantial change yet an accident is the terminus mutationis that is it is by their explication of it wholly an accidental change as I have before discoursed for nothing is produced but Vbiquity or Presentiality that is it is only made present where it was not before And it is to be observed that there is a vast difference between Conversion and Transubstantiation the first is not denied meaning by it a change of use of condition of sanctification as a Table is changed into an Altar a House into a Church a Man into a Priest Matthias into an Apostle the Water of the River into the Laver of Regeneration But this is not any thing of Transubstantiation For in this new device there are three strange affirmatives of which the Fathers never dream'd 1. That the natural being of bread is wholly ceased and is not at all neither the matter nor the form 2. That the accidents of bread and wine remain without a subject their proper subject being annihilated and they not subjected in the holy body 3. That the body of Christ is brought into the place of the bread which is not chang'd into it but is succeeded by it These are the constituent propositions of Transubstantiation without the proof of which all the affirmations of conversion signifie nothing to their purpose or against ours 7. Seventhly When the Fathers use the word Nature in this question sometimes saying the Nature is changed sometimes that the Nature remains it is evident that they either contradicted each other or that the word Nature hath amongst them diverse significations Now in order to this I suppose if men will be determined by the reasonableness of the things themselves and the usual manners of speech and not by prejudices and prepossessions it will be evident that when they speak of the change of Nature saying that bread changes his nature it may be understood of an accidental change for that the word Nature is used for a change of accidents is by the Roman Doctors contended for when it is to serve their turns particularly in their answer to the words of Pope Gelasius and it is evident in the thing for we say a man of a good nature that is of a loving disposition It is natural to me to love or hate this or that and it is against my nature that is my custome or my affection But then as it may signifie accidents and a Natural change may yet be accidental as when water is chang'd into ice wine into vinegar yet it is also certain that Nature may mean substance and if it can by the analogie of the place or the circumstances of speech or by any thing be declared when it is that they mean a substance by using the word nature it must be certain that then substance is meant when the word nature is used distinctly from and in opposition to accidents or when it is explicated by and in conjunction with substance which observation is reducible to practice in the following testimonies of Theodoret Gelasius and others Immortalitatem dedit naturam non abstulit says S. Austin 8. Eighthly So also Whatsoever words are used by the ancient Doctors seemingly affirmative of a substantial change cannot serve their interest that now most desire it because themselves being pressed with the words of Natura and Substantia against them answer that the Fathers using these words mean them not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not naturally but Theologically that is as I suppose not properly but Sacramentally by the same account when they speak of the change of the bread into the substance of Christs body they may mean the change of substance not naturally but sacramentally so that this ought to invalidate the greatest testimony which can be alledged by them because themselves have taken from the words that sence which only must have done them advantage for if Substantia and Natura always mean naturally then their sentence is oftentimes positively condemned by the Fathers if this may mean Sacramentally then they can never without a just answer pretend from their words to prove a Natural Substantial change 9. Ninthly But that the words of the Fathers in their most hyperbolical expressions ought to be expounded Sacramentally and Mystically we have sufficient warrant from themselves affirming frequently that the name of the thing signified is given to the sign S. Cyprian affirms ut significantia significata eisdem vocabulis censeantur the same words represent the sign and the thing signified The same is affirmed by S. Austin in his Epistle ad Bonifacium Now upon this declaration of themselves and of Scripture whatsoever attributes either of them give to bread after consecration we are by themselves warranted against the force of the words by a metaphorical sence for if they call the sign by the name of the thing signified and the thing intended is called by the name of a figure and the figure by the name of the thing then no affirmative of the Fathers can conclude against them that have reason to believe the sence of the words of institution to be figurative for their answer is ready the Fathers and the Scriptures too call the figure by the name of the thing figurated the bread by the name of flesh or the body of Christ which it figures and represents 10. Tenthly The Fathers in their alledged testimonies speak more than is allowed to be literally and properly true by either side and therefore declare and force an understanding of their words different from the Roman pretension Such are the words of S. Chrysostom Thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him and thy tongue is made bloody by this admirable blood thy teeth are fastned in his flesh thy teeth are made red with his blood and the Author of the book de coenâ Domini attributed to S. Cyprian Cruci haeremus c. We stick close to the cross we suck his blood and fasten our tongue between the very wounds of our Redeemer and under his head may be reduced very many other testimonies now how far these go beyond the just positive limit it will be in the power of any man to say and to take into this account as many as he please even all that go beyond his own sence and opinion without all possibility of being confuted 11. Eleventhly In vain will it be for any of the Roman Doctors to alledge the words of the Fathers proving the conversion of bread into Christs body or flesh and of the wine into his blood since they say the same thing of us that we also are turned into Christs flesh and body and blood So S. Chrysostom He reduces us into the same mass
Indeed Mr. Brerely hath got an ignorant fancy by the end which I am now to note and wipe off He saies that the Primitive Christians were scandalized by the Heathen to be eaters of the flesh of a child which in all reason must be occasioned by their doctrine of the manducation of Christs flesh in the Sacrament and if this be true then we may suspect that they to wipe of this scandal might remove their doctrine as far from the objection as they could and therefore might use some lessening expressions To this I answer that the occasions of the report were the sects of the Gnosticks and the Peputians The Gnosticks as Epiphanius reports bruised a new born infant in a mortar and all of them did communicate by eating portions of it and the Montanists having sprinkled a little child with meal let him blood and of that made their Eucharistical bread and these stories the Jews published to disrepute if they could the whole religion but nothing of this related to the doctrine of the Christian Eucharist though the bell always must tinkle as they are pleased to think But this turned to advantage of the truth and to the clearing of this Article For when the scandal got foot and run abroad the Heathens spared not to call the Christians Cannibals and to impute to them anthropophagy or the devouring humane flesh and that they made Thyestes's Feast who by the procurement of Atreus eat his own children Against this the Christian Apologists betook themselves to a defence Justin Martyr says the false devils had set on work some vile persons to kill some one or other to give colour to the report Athenagoras in a high defiance of the infamy asks Do you think we are murtherers for there is no way to eat mans flesh unless we first kill him Octavius in Minutius Felix confutes it upon this account We do not receive the blood of beasts into our food or beverage therefore we are infinitely distant from drinking mans blood And this same Tertullian in his Apologetick presses further affirming that to discover Christians they use to offer them a black pudding or something in which blood remained and they chose rather to die than to do it and of this we may see instances in the story of Sanctus and Blandina in the ecclesiastical histories Concerning which it is remarkable what Oecumenius in his Catena upon the 2 chap. of the first Epistle of S. Peter reports out of Irenaeus The Greeks having taken some servants of Christians pressing to learn something secret of the Christians and they having nothing in their notice to please the inquisitors except that they had heard of their Masters that the divine communion is the blood and body of Christ they supposing it true according to their rude natural apprehensions tortur'd Sanctus and Blandina to confess it But Blandina answered them thus How can they suffer any such thing in the exercise of their Religion who do not nourish themselves with flesh that is permitted All this trouble came upon the act of the forementioned hereticks the report was only concerning the blood of an infant not of a man as it must have been if it had been occasioned by the Sacrament but the Sacrament was not so much as thought of in this scrutiny till the examination of the servants gave the hint in the torture of Blandina Cardinal Perron perceiving much detriment likely to come to their doctrine by these Apologies of the primitive Christians upon the 11. anathematism of S. Cyril says that they deny anthropophagy but did not deny Theanthropophagy saying that they did not eat the flesh nor drink the blood of a meer man but of Christ who was God and Man which is so strange a device as I wonder it could drop from the pen of so great a wit For this would have been a worse and more intolerable scandal to affirm that Christians eat their God and sucked his blood and were devourers not only of a man but of an immortal God But however let his fancy be confronted with the extracts of the several apologies which I have now cited and it will appear that nothing of the Cardinals fancy can come near their sence or words for all the business was upon the blood of a child which the Gnosticks had kill'd or the Montanists tormented and the matter of the Sacrament was not in the whole rumour so much as thought upon 15. Lastly Unless there be no one objection of ours that means as it says but all are shadows and nothing is awake but Bellarmine in all his dreams or Perron in all his laborious excuses if we be allowed to be in our wits and to understand Latin or Greek or common sence unless the Fathers must all be understood according to their new nonsence answers which the Primitive Doctors were so far from understanding or thinking of that besides that it is next to impudence to suppose they could mean them their own Doctors in a few ages last past did not know them but opposed and spake some things contrary and many things divers from them I say unless we have neither sense nor reason nor souls like other men it is certain that not one nor two but very many of the Fathers taught our doctrine most expresly in this article and against theirs * And after all whether the testimonies of the Doctors be ancient or modern it is advantage to us and inconvenient for them For if it be ancient it shews their doctrine not to be from the beginning if it be modern it does it more for it declares plainly the doctrine to be but of yesterday now I am very certain I can make it appear not to have been the doctrine of the Church not of any Church whose records we have for above a thousand years together 16. But now in my entry upon the testimonies of Fathers I shall make my way the more plain and credible if I premise the testimonies of some of the Roman Doctors in this business And the first I shall name is Bellarmine himself who was the most wary of giving advantage against himself but yet he says Non esse mirandum c. it is not to be wondred at if S. Austin Theodoret and others of the ancients spake some things which in shew seem to favour the hereticks when even from Jodocus some things did fall which by the adversaries were drawn to their cause Now though he lessens the matter by quaedam and videantur and in speciem seemingly and in shew and some things yet it was as much as we could expect from him with whom visibilitèr if it be on our side must mean invisibilitèr and statuimus must be abrogamus But I rest not here Alphonsus à Castro says more De transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis Scriptoribus mentio The ancient writers seldom mention the change of the substance of bread into
the body of Christ. And yet these men would make us believe that all the world 's their own But Scotus does directly deny the doctrine of Conversion or Transubstantiation to be ancient so says Henriquez Ante Concilium Lateranense Transubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei So said Scotus himself as Bellarmine cites him and some of the Fathers of the Society in England in their prison affirm'd Rem Transubstantiationis Patres ne attigisse quidem That the Fathers did not so much as touch the matter of Transubstantiation and it was likely so because Peter Lombard whose design it was to collect the sentences of the Fathers into heads of articles found in them so nothing to the purpose of Transubstantiation that he professed he was not able to define whether the conversion of the Eucharistical bread were formal or substantial or of another kind To some it seems to be substantial saying the substance is changed into the substance Quibusdam videtur it seems and that not to all neither but to some for his part he knows not whether they are right or wrong therefore in his days the doctrine was not Catholick And me thinks it was an odd saying of Vasquez and much to this purpose that as soon as ever the later Schoolmen heard the name of Transubstantiation such a controversie did arise concerning the nature of it he says not of the meaning of the word but the nature of the thing that by how much the more they did endeavour to extricate themselves by so much the more they were intangled in difficulties It seems it was news to them to hear talk of it and they were as much strangers to the nature of it as to the name it begat quarrels and became a riddle which they could not resolve but like Achelous his horn sent forth a river of more difficulty to be waded thorough than the horn was to be broken And amongst these Schoolmen Durandus maintained an heretical opinion says Bellarmine saying that the form of bread was changed into Christs body but that the matter of bread remained still by which also it is apparent that then this doctrine was but in the forge it was once stamped upon at the Lateran Council but the form was rude and it was fain to be cast again and polished at Trent the Jesuit order being the chief masters of the mint But now I proceed to the trial of this Topick 17. I shall not need to arrest the Reader with consideration of the pretension made by the Roman Doctors out of the passions of the Apostles which all men condemn for spurious and Apocryphal particularly the passion of S. Andrew said to be written by the Priests and Deacons of Achaia For it is sufficient that they are so esteemed by Baronius censured for such by Gelasius by Philastrius and Innocentius they were corrupted also by the Manichees by additions and detractions and yet if they were genuine and uncorrupted they say nothing but what we profess Although the holy Lamb truly sacrificed and his flesh eaten by the people doth nevertheless persevere whole and alive for no man that I know of pretends that Christ is so eaten in the Sacrament that he dies for it for his flesh is eaten spiritually and by faith and that is the most true manducation of Christs body the flesh of the holy Lamb and this manducation breaks not a bone of him but then how he can be torn by the teeth of the communicants and yet remain whole is a harder matter to tell and therefore these words are very far from their sence they are nearer to an objection But I shall not be troubled with this any more save that I shall observe that one White of the Roman perswasion quoting part of these words which Bellarmine and from him the under-writers object Ego omnipotenti Deo omni die immaculatum agnum sacrifico of these words in particular affirms that without all controversie they are apocryphal 18. Next to him is S. Ignatius who is cited to have said something of this question in his epistle ad Smyrnenses speaking of certain hereticks They do not admit of Eucharists and oblations because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour which flesh suffered for us They that do not confess it let them be anathema for sure it is as sure as Christ is true but quomodo is the question and of this S. Ignatius says nothing But the understanding of these words perfectly depends upon the story of that time Concerning which we learn out of Tertullian and Irenaeus that the Marcosians the Valentinians and Marcionites who denied the Incarnation of the son of God did nevertheless use the Eucharistical Symbols though I say they denied Christ to have a body Now because this usage of theirs did confute their grand heresie for to what purpose should they celebrate the Sacrament of Christs body if he had none therefore it is that S. Ignatius might say They did not admit the Eucharist because they did not confess it to be the flesh of Christ for though in practice they did admit it yet in theory they denyed it because it could be nothing as they handled the matter For how could it be Christs flesh Sacramentally if he had no flesh really And therefore they did not admit the Eucharist as the Church did for in no sence would they grant it to be the flesh of Christ not the figure not the Sacrament of it lest admitting the figure they should also confess the substance But besides if these words had been against us it had signified nothing because these words are not in S. Ignatius they are in no Greek Copy of him but they are reported by Theodoret. But in these there is nothing else material than what I have accounted for I only took them in by the bie because they are great names and are objected sometimes But I shall descend to more material testimonies and consider those objections that are incident to the mention of the several Fathers supposing that the others are invalid upon the account of the premises or if they were not yet they can but pass for single opinions against which themselves and others are opposed at other times 19. Tertullian is affirmative in that sence of the article which we teach Acceptum panem distributum discipulis suis Christus corpus suum meum fecit dicendo Hoc est corpus i. e. figura corporis mei He proves against the Marcionites that Christ had a true real body in his incarnation by this argument because in the Sacrament he gave bread as the figure of his body saying This is my body that is the figure of my body Fisher in his answer to the ninth question propounded by K. James and he from Card. Perron say it is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and answers to this place that Figura corporis mei refers after Tertullians odd
manner of speaking to Hoc not to corpus meum which are the words immediately preceding and so most proper for the relation and that the sence is This figure of my body is my body that is this which was a figure in the Old Testament is now a substance To this I reply 1. It must mean this which is present is my body not this figure of my body which was in the Old Testament but this which we mean in the words of consecration and then it is no hyperbaton which is to be supplied with quod erat This which was for the nature of a hyperbaton is to make all right by a meer transposition of the words as Christus mortuus est i. e. unctus place unctus before mortuus and the sentence is perfect but it is not so here without the addition of two words it cannot be and if two words may be added we may make what sence we please But 2. suppose that figura corporis does refer to Hoc yet it is to be remembred that Hoc in that place is one of the words of the institution or consecration and then it can have no sence to evacuate the pressure of his words 3. Suppose this reference of the words to be intended then the sence will be This figure of my body is my body the consequent of which is that which we contend for that the same which is called his body is the figure of his body the one is the subject the other the predicate and then it affirms all that is pleaded for as if we say Haec effigies est homo we mean it is the effigies of a man and so in this This figure of my body is my body by the rule of denominatives signifies This is the figure of my body 4. In the preceding words Tertullian says the Pascha was the type of his passion this Pascha he desired to eat This Pascha was not the lamb for he was betrayed the night before it was to be eaten professus se concupisâ—entiâ concupisse edere Pascha ut suum indignum enim ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus he would eat the Passeover of his own figuram sanguinis sui salutaris implere concupiscebat he desir'd to fulfil the figure that is to produce the last of all the figures of his healing blood Now this was by eating the Paschal Lamb that is himself for the other was not to be eaten that night Now then if the eating or delivering himself to be eaten that night was implere figuram sanguinis sui he then did fulfil the figure of his blood therefore figura corporis mei in the following words must relate to what he did that night that therefore was the figure but the more excellent because the nearest to the substance which was given really the next day this therefore as S. Gregory Nazianzen affirms was the most excellent figure the Paschal lamb it self being figura figurae the figure of a figure as I have quoted him in the sequel And it is not disagreeing from the expression of Scripture saying that the law had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a shadow but not the very image that was in the ceremonies of the law this in the Sacraments of the Gospel Christ himself was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing it self but the image was more than the shadow though less than the substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the word by which the Fathers expressed this nearer configuration 5. Whereas it is added it had not been a figure nisi veritatis esset corpus to my sence clears the question for therefore Christs body which he was cloathed withall was a true body else this could not be a figure of it But therefore this which was also a figure could not be the true body of which it was a figure 6. That which Fisher adds that Tertullians drift was to shew that whereas in the old Testament bread was the figure of the body of Christ as appears by the words of the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem ejus i. e. crucem in corpus ejus Christ in the new Testament made this figure really to be his body This I conceive to make very much against Tertullians design For he proves that therefore Christ might well call bread his body that was no new thing for it was so also in the old figure and therefore may be so now But that this was no more than a figure he adds If therefore he made bread to be his body because he wanted a true body then bread was delivered for us and it would advance the vanity of Marcion that bread was crucified No this could not be but therefore he must mean that as of old in the Prophet and in the Passeover so now in the last supper he gave the same figure and therefore that which was figured was real viz. his crucified body Now suppose we should frame this argument out of Tertullians medium and suppose it to be made by Marcion The body of Christ was delivered for the sins of the world c. you Catholicks say that bread is the body of Christ therefore you say that bread was delivered for the sins of the whole world and that bread was crucified for you and that bread is the son of God what answer could be made to this out of Tertullian but by expounding the minor proposition figuratively We Catholicks say that the Eucharistical bread is the body of Christ in a figurative sence it is completio or consummatio figurarum the last and most excellent of all figures But if he should have said according to the Roman fancy that it is the natural body of Christ it would have made rare triumphs in the Schools of Marcion But that there may be no doubt in this particular hear himself summing up his own discourses in this question Proinde panis calicis Sacramento jam in Evangelio probavimus corporis sanguinis Dominici veritatem adversùs phantasma Marcionis Against the phantasm of Marcion we have proved the verity of Christs body and blood by the Sacrament of bread and wine 7. This very answer I find to be Tertullians own explication of this affair for speaking of the same figurative speech of the Prophet Jeremy and why bread should be called his body he gives this account Hoc lignum Jeremias tibi insinuat dicturis praedicans Judaeis Venite mittamus lignum in panem ejus utique in corpus sic enim Deus in Evangelio quoque vestro revelavit panem corpus suum appellans ut hinc jam eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse cujus retro corpus in panem prophetis figuravit ipso domino hoc Sacramentum postea interpretaturo For so God revealed in your Gospel calling bread his body that hence thou mayest understand that he gave to bread the figure of his body whose body anciently the Prophet figured by bread afterwards the Lord himself
and by Gregory de Valentiâ The words are these Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed naturâ mutatus omnipotentiâ verbi factus est caro sicut in personâ Christi c. The bread which the Lord gave to his disciples is changed not in shape but in nature being made flesh by the omnipotency of the word and as in the person of Christ the humanity was seen and the divinity lay hid so in the visible Sacrament the divine essence after an ineffable manner pours it self forth that devotion about the Sacraments might be religion and that a more sincere entrance may be opened to the truth whereof the body and the blood are Sacraments even unto the participation of the Spirit not unto the consubstantiality of Christ. This testimony as Bellarmine says admits of no answer But by his favour it admits of many 1. Bellarmine cites but half of those words and leaves out that which gives him answer 2. The words affirm that that body and blood are but a Sacrament of a reality and truth but if it were really and naturally Christs body then it were it self veritas corpus and not only a Sacrament 3. The truth of which these are Sacramental is the participation of the Spirit that is a Spiritual communication 4. This does not arrive ad Consubstantialitatem Christi to a participation or communion of the substance of Christ which it must needs do if bread were so changed in nature as that it were substantially the body of Christ. 5. These Sermons of S. Cyprians title and name are under the name also of Arnoldus Abbot of Bonavilla in the time of S. Bernard as appears in a M S. in the Library of All-Souls Colledge of which I had the honour sometimes to be a Fellow However it is confessed on all sides that this Tractate is not S. Cyprians and who is the Father of it if Arnoldus be not cannot be known neither his age nor reputation His style sounds like the eloquence of the Monastery being direct Friers Latin as appears by his honorificare amaricare injuriare demembrare sequestrare attitulare spiritalitas t◠supplico and some false latin besides and therefore he ought to pass for nothing which I confess I am sorry for as to this question because to my sence he gives us great advantage in it But I am content to lose what our cause needs not I am certain they can get nothing by him For if the authority were not incompetent the words were impertinent to their purpose but very much against them only let me add out of the same Sermon these words Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam incrementum corporibus ideóque ex consueto effectu fidei nostra adjuta infirmitas sensibili argumento edocta visibilibus Sacramentis inesse vitae aeternae effectum non tam corporali quà m spirituali transitione nos cum Christo uniri That common bread being changed into flesh and blood procures life and increment to our bodies therefore our infirmity being helped with the usual effect of faith is taught by a sensible argument that the effect of eternal life is in visible Sacraments and that we are united to Christ not so much by a corporal as by a Spiritual change If both these discourses be put together let the authority of the writer be what it will the greater the better 23. In the dialogues against the Marcionites collected out of Maximus in the time of Commodus or Severus or thereabouts Origen is brought in speaking thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If as the Marcionites say Christ had neither flesh nor blood of what flesh or of what blood did he giving bread and the chalice as images command his disciples that by these a remembrance of him should be made 24. To the same purpose are the words of Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gave to his disciples the Symbols of Divine oeconomie commanding the image or type of his own body to be made and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They received a command according to the constitution of the new Testament to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the table by the symbols of his body and healthful blood 25. S. Ephrem the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch is dogmatical and decretory in this question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The body of Christ received by the faithful departs not from his sensible substance and is undivided from a spiritual grace He adds the similitude and parity of baptism to this mystery for even baptism being wholly made Spiritual and being that which is the same and proper of the sensible substance I mean of water saves and that which is born doth not perish I will not descant upon these or any other words of the Fathers I alledge for if of their own natural intent they do not teach our doctrine I am content they should pass for nothing 26. S. Epiphanius affirming man to be like God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some image or similitude not according to Nature illustrates it by the similitude of the blessed Sacrament We see that our Saviour took into his hands as the Evangelist hath it that he arose from supper and took those things and when he had given thanks he said This is mine and this we see it is not equal it is not like not to the image in the flesh not to the invisible Deity not to the proportion of members for this is a round form 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and cannot perceive any thing or is insensible according to power or faculty and he would by grace say This is mine and this and every man believes the word that is spoken for he that believeth not him to be true is fallen from grace and salvation Now the force of Epiphanius his argument consisting in this that we are like to God after his image but yet not according to nature as the Sacramental bread is like the body of Christ it is plain that the Sacramental species are the body of Christ and his blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the image or representment not according to Nature but according to Grace 25. Macarius his words are plain enough 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Church is offered bread and wine the antitype of his flesh and of his blood and they that partake of the bread that appears do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ. 26. S. Gregory Nazianzen speaking of the Pascha saith Jam potestatis participes erimus c. Now we shall be partakers of the Paschal supper but still in figure though more clear than in the old law For the legal passeover I will not be afraid to speak it was a more obscure figure of a figure S. Ambrose is of the same perswasion Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est
figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi Make this ascribed oblation reasonable and acceptable which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. And again Mira potentia c. it is a wonderful power of God which makes that the bread should remain what it is and yet be changed into another thing And again How much more operative is the word of Christ that the things be what they were and yet be changed into another and so that which was bread before consecration now is the body of Christ Hoc tamen impossibile est ut panis sit corpus Christi Sed haec verba ad sanum intellectum sunt intelligenda ita solvit Hugo saith the Gloss in Gratian which is an open defiance of the doctrine of S. Ambrose affirming it to be impossible But because these words pinch severely they have retrenched the decisive words and leave out sint and make them to run thus that the things be changed into another which corruption is discovered by the citation of these words in Paschasius Guitmond Bertram Algerus Ivo Carnotensis Gratian and Lombard But in another place he calls the mystical chalice the type of the blood and that Christ is offered here in imagine in type image or representation in coelo in veritate the truth the substance is in heaven And again This therefore truly is the Sacrament of his flesh Our Lord Jesus himself says this is my body Before the blessing by the words it was named another species or kind after the consecration the body of Christ is signified 27. S. Chrysostome is brought on both sides and his Rhetorick hath cast him on the Roman side but it also bears him beyond it and his divinity and sober opinions have fixt him on ours How to answer the expressions hyperbolical which he often uses is easie by the use of rhetorick and customs of the words But I know not how any man can sensibly answer these words For as before the bread is sanctified we name it bread but the Divine grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is freed from the name of bread but it is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords body although the nature of bread remains in it To the same purpose are those words on the Twenty second Psalm published amongst his works though possibly they were of some other of that time or before or after it matters not to us but much to them for if he be later and yet esteemed a Catholick as it is certain he was and the man a-while supposed to be S. Chrysostome it is the greater evidence that it was long before the Church received their doctrine The words are these That table he hath prepared to his servants and his maidens in their sight that he might every day shew us in the Sacrament according to the order of Melchisedeck bread and wine to the likeness of the body and blood of Christ. To the same purpose is that saying in the Homilies of whoever is the Author of that opus imperfectum upon S. Mat. Si igitur haec vasa c. If therefore these vessels being sanctified it be so dangerous to transfer them to private uses in which the body of Christ is not but the mystery of his body is contained how much more concerning the vessels of our bodies c. Now against these testimonies they make an out-cry that they are not S. Chrysostoms works and for this last the book is corrupted and they think in this place by some one of Berengarius's scholars for they cannot tell Fain they would believe it but this kind of talk is a resolution not to yield but to proceed against all evidence for that this place is not corrupted but was originally the sence of the Author of the Homilies is highly credible by the faith of all the old MS. and there is in the publick Library of Oxford an excellent MS. very ancient that makes faith in this particular but that some one of their scholars might have left these words out of some of their copies were no great wonder though I do not find they did but that they foisted in a marginal note affirming that these words are not in all old copies an affirmation very confident but as the case stands to very little purpose But upon this account nothing can be proved from sayings of Fathers For either they are not their own works but made by another or 2. They are capable of another sence or 3. The places are corrupted by Hereticks or 4. It is not in some old copies which pretences I am content to let alone if they upon this account will but transact the question wholly by Scripture and common sence 5. It matters not at all what he is so he was not esteemed an Heretick and that he was not it is certain since by themselves these books are put among the works of S. Chrysostom and themselves can quote them when they seem to do them service All that I infer from hence is this that whensoever these books were writ some man esteemed a good Catholick was not of the Roman perswasion in the matter of the Sacrament therefore their opinion is not Catholick But that S. Chrysostom may not be drawn from his right of giving testimony and interpretation of his words in other places in his 23 Homily upon the first of the Corinthians which are undoubtedly his own he saith As thou eatest the body of the Lord so they viz. the faithful in the old Testament did eat Manna as thou drinkest blood so they the water of the rock For though the things which are made be sensible yet they are given spiritually not according to the consequence of nature but according to the grace of a gift and with the body they also nourish the soul leading unto faith 28. The next I produce for evidence in this case is S. Austin concerning whom it is so evident that he was a Protestant in this Article that truly it is a strange boldness to deny it and upon equal terms no mans mind in the world can be known for if all that he says in this question shall be reconcilable to Transubstantiation I know no reason but it may be possible but a witty man may pretend when I am dead that in this discourse I have pleaded for the doctrine of the Roman Church I will set his words down nakedly without any Gloss upon them and let them do by themselves as much as they can Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem c. For if the Sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they were no Sacraments at all But from this similitude for the most part they receive the things themselves As therefore according to a certain manner the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the Sacrament of the blood of
Christ is the blood of Christ so the Sacrament of faith is Now suppose a stranger to the tricks of the Roman Doctors a wise and a discerning man should read these words in S. Austin and weigh them diligently and compare them with all the adjacent words and circumstances of the place I would desire reasonably to be answered on which side he would conclude S. Austin to be if in any other place he speaks words contrary that is his fault or forgetfulness but if the contrary had been the doctrine of the Church he could never have so forgotten his Religion and Communion as so openly to have declared a contrary sence to the same Article Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis c. You are not to eat this body which you see so he brings in Christ speaking to his disciples or to drink that blood which my crucifiers shall pour forth I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you and Christ brought them to a banquet in which he commended to his disciples the figure of his body and blood * For he did not doubt to say This is my body when he gave the sign of his body * Quod ab omnibus sacrificium appellatur c. That which by all men is called a sacrifice is the sign of the true sacrifice in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrances But concerning S. Austins doctrine I shall refer him that desires to be further satisfied to no other record than their own Canon Law Which not only from S. Austin but from divers others produces testimonies so many so pertinent so full for our doctrine and against the dream of Transubstantiation that it is to me a wonder why it is not clapped into the Indices expurgatorii for it speaks very many truths beyond the cure of their Glosses which they have changed and altered several times But that this matter concerning S. Austin may be yet clearer his own third book de doctrinâ Christianâ is so plain for us in this question that when Frudegardus in the time of Charles the Bald had upon occasion of the dispute which then began to be hot and interested in this question read this book of S. Austin he was changed to the opinion of a Spiritual and mysterious presence and upon occasion of that his being perswaded by S. Austin Paschasius Ratberdus wrote to him as of a question then doubted of by many persons as is to be seen in his Epistle to Frudegardus I end this of S. Austin with those words of his which he intends by way of rule for expounding these and the like words of Scripture taken out of this book of Christian doctrine Locutio praeceptiva c. A preceptive speech forbidding a crime or commanding something good or profitable is not figurative but if it seems to command a crime or forbid a good then it is figurative Vnless ye eat the flesh of the son of man c. seems to command a wickedness it is therefore a figure commanding us to communicate with the passion of our Lord and sweetly and profitably to lay it up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us I shall not need to urge that this holy Sacrament is called Eucharistia carnis sanguinis The Eucharist of the body and blood by Irenaeus Corpus symbolicum typicum by Origen In typo sanguis by S. Jerome similitudo figura typus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 images enigmaes representations expressions exemplars of the Passion by divers others that which I shall note here is this that in the Council of Constantinople it was publickly professed that the Sacrament is not the body of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by nature but by representment for so it is expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy image of it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Eucharistical bread is the true image of the natural flesh and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A figure or image delivered by God of his flesh and a true image of the incarnate dispensation of Christ. These things are found in the third Tome of the Sixth Action of the second Nicene Council where a pert Deacon ignorant and confident had boldly said that none of the Apostles or Fathers had ever called the Sacrament the image of Christs body that they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 antitypes before consecration he grants but after consecration they are called and are and are believed to be the body and blood of Christ properly which I suppose he might have learned of Damascene who in opposition to the Iconoclasts would not endure the word Type or Image to be used concerning the holy Sacrament for they would admit no other image but that he in defiance of them who had excommunicated him for a worshipper of Images and a half Sarazin would admit any Image but that but denied that to be an Image or Type of Christ de fide l. 4. c. 14. For Christ said not This is the Type of my body but it is it But however this new question began to branle the words of Type and Antitype and the manner of speaking began to be changed yet the Article as yet was not changed For the Fathers used the words of Type and Antitype and Image c. to exclude the natural sence of the Sacramental body and Damascene and Anastasius Sinaita and some others of that Age began to refuse those words lest the Sacrament be thought to be nothing of reality nothing but an Image And that this really was the sence of Damascene appears by his words recited in the Acts of the second Council of Nice affirming that the Divine bread is made Christs body by assumption and inhabitation of the Spirit of Christ in the same manner as water is made the laver of regeneration But however they were pleased to speak in the Nicene assembly yet in the Roman Edition of the Councils the Publishers and Collectors were wiser and put on this marginal note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The holy gifts are oftentimes called types and figures even after consecration particularly by Gregory Nazianzen and S. Cyril of Hierusalem I remember only one thing objected to this testimony of so many Bishops that they were Iconoclasts or breakers of images and therefore not to be trusted in any other Article So Bellarmine as I remember But this is just as if I should say that I ought to refuse the Lateran Council because they were worshippers of Images or defenders of Purgatory Surely if I should I had much more reason to refuse their sentence than there is that the Greeks should be rejected upon so slight a pretence nay for doing that which for ought appears was in all their circumstances their duty in a high
measure so that in effect they are refused for being good Christians But after this it happened again that the words of type and image were disliked in the question of the holy Sacrament by the Emperor Charles the great his Tutor Alcuinus and the Assembly at Frankfort but it was in opposition to the Council of Constantinople that called it the true image of Christs body and of the Nicene Council who decreed the worship of Images for if the Sacrament were an Image as they of CP said then it might be lawful to give reverence and worship to some Images for although these two Synods were enemies to each other yet the proposition of one might serve the design of the other but therefore the Western Doctors of that age speaking against the decree of this did also mislike the expression of that meaning that the Sacrament is not a type or image as a type is taken for a prefiguration a shadow of things to come like the legal ceremonies but in opposition to that is a body and a truth yet still it is a Sacrament of the body a mystery which is the same in effect with that which the Fathers taught in their so frequent using these words of Type c. for 750. years together And concerning this I only note the words of Charles the Emperor Ep. ad Alcuinum after the Synod Our Lord hath given the Bread and the Chalice in figurâ corporis sui sui sanguinis in the figure of his body and blood But setting the authority aside for if these men of CP be not allowed yet the others are and it is notorious that the Greek Fathers did frequently call the bread and wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin Fathers call them signs similitudes figures types images therefore there must be something pretended to stop this great out-cry and insupportable prejudice of so great so clear authority After many trials as that by antitypes they mean exemplars that it is only before consecration not after and such other little devices of which they themselves quickly grew weary at last the craftiest of them came to this that the body of Christ under the Species might well be said to be the sign of the same body and blood as it was on the Cross so Bellarmine That 's the answer and that they are hard put to it you may guess by the meanness of the answer For besides that nothing can be like it self Idem non est simile the body as it is under the Species is glorified immortal invisible impassible indivisible insensible and this is it which he affirms to be the sign that is which is appointed to signifie and represent a body that was humbled tormented visible mortal sensible torn bleeding and dying So that here is a sign nothing like the thing signified and an invisible sign of a visible body which is the greatest absurdity in nature and in the use of things which is imaginable but besides this this answer if it were a proper and sensible account of any thing yet it is besides the mark for that the Fathers in these allegations affirm that the Species are the signs that is that bread and wine or the whole Sacrament is a sign of that body which is exhibited in effect and Spiritual power they dreamt not this dream it was long before themselves did dream it They that were but the day before them having as I noted before other fancies I deny not but the Sacramental body is the sign of the true body crucified but that the body glorified should be but a sign of the true body crucified is a device fit for themselves to fancy To this sence are those words cited by Lombard and Gratian out of S. Austin in the sentences of Prosper Caro ejus est quam formâ panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus sanguis quem sub specie vini potamus Caro viz. Carnis sanguis sacramentum est sanguinis carne sanguine utroque invisibili intelligibili spirituali significatur corpus Christi visibile plenum gratiae divinae majestatis That is It is his flesh which under the form of bread we receive in the Sacrament and under the form of wine we drink his blood Now that you may understand his meaning he tells you this is true in the Sacramental or Spiritual sence only for he adds flesh is the Sacrament of flesh and blood of blood by both flesh and blood which are invisible intelligible and Spiritual is signified the visible body of Christ full of grace and Divine majesty In which words here is a plain confutation of their main Article and of this whimsie of theirs For as to the particular whereas Bellarmine says that Christs body real and natural is the type of the body as it was crucified S. Austin says that the natural body is a type of that body which is glorified not the glorified body of the crucified 2. That which is a type is flesh in a spiritual sence not in a natural and therefore it can mean nothing but this That the Sacramental body is a figure and type of the real 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this thing is noted by the Gloss of Gratian. Caro i. e. species carnis sub qua latet corpus Christi c. The flesh that is the Species of it under which it lies are the Sacrament of the flesh so that the being of a Sacrament of Christs body is wholly relative to the Symbols not to the body as if the body were his own sign and his own Sacrament 30. Next to this heap of testimonies I must repeat the words of Theodoret and Gelasius which though known in this whole question yet being plain certain and unanswerable relying upon a great Article of the religion even the union of the two natures of Christ into one person without the change of substances must be as sacred and untouched by any trifling answer as the Article it self ought to be preserved The case was this The Eutychian Hereticks denied the natures of Christ to be united in one person that is they denied him to be both God and Man saying his humanity was taken into his divinity after his ascension The Fathers disputing against them say the substances remain intire though joyned in the person The Eutychians said this was impossible But as in the Sacrament the bread was changed into Christs body so in the ascension was the humanity turned into the divinity To this Theodoret answers in a Dialogue between the Eutychians under the name of Eranistes and himself the Orthodox Christ honoured the symbols and signs which are seen with the title of his body and blood not changing the nature but to nature adding grace The words are not capable of an answer if we observe that he says there is no change made but only grace superadded in all things else the things are the same And again For neither do
the mystical signes recede from their nature for they abide in their proper substance figure and form and may be seen and touched c. So the humanity of Christ and a little after So that body of Christ hath the ancient form figure superscription and to speak the summe of all the substance of the body although after the resurrection it be immortal and free from all corruption Now these words spoken upon this occasion to this purpose in direct opposition to a contradicting person but casting his Article wholly upon supposition of a substantial change and opposing to him a ground contrary to his upon which only he builds his answer cannot be eluded by any little pretence Bellarmine and the lesser people from him answer that by nature he understands the exterior qualities of nature such as colour taste weight smell c. 1. I suppose this but does he mean so by Substantia too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Does he by substance mean accidents but suppose that a while yet 2. If he had answered thus how had Theodoret confuted the Eutychians For thus says Eranistes As the bread is changed in substance into the body of Christ so is the humanity into the divinity yea but says Theodoret according to Bellarmine The substances of bread is not changed for the colour the shape the bigness and the smell remain or thus the accidents remain which I call substance for there are two sorts of substances substances and accidents and this latter sort of substances remain but not the former and so you are confuted Eranistes But what if Eranistes should reply if you say all of bread is changed excepting the accidents then my argument holds for I only contend that the substance of the humanity is changed as you say the substance of bread is To this nothing can be said unless Theodoret may have leave to answer as otherwise men must But now Theodoret answered that the substance of bread is not changed but remains still and by substance he did mean substance and not the accidents for if he had he had not spoken sence Either therefore the testimony of Theodoret remaineth unsatisfied by our adversaries or the argument of the Eutychians is unanswered by Theodoret. 3. Theodoret in these places opposes Nature to Grace and says all remains without any change but of Grace 4. He also explicates Nature by Substance so that it is a Substantial Nature he must mean 5. He distinguishes substance from form and figure and therefore by substance cannot mean form and figure as Bellarmine dreams 6. He affirms concerning the body of Christ that in the resurrection it is changed in accidents being made incorruptible and immortal but affirms that the substance remains therefore by substance he must mean as he speaks without any prodigious sence affixed to the word 7. Let me observe this by the way that the doctrine of the substantial change of bread into the body of Christ was the perswasion of the Heretick the Eutychian Eranistes but denied by the Catholick Theodoret So that if they will pretend to antiquity in this doctrine their plea is made ready and framed by the Eutychian from whom they may if they please derive the original of their doctrine or if they please from the elder Marcosites but it will be but vain to think the Eutychian did argue from thence as if it had been a Catholick ground reason we might have had to suppose it if the Catholick had not denied it But the case is plain as the Sadduces disputed with Christ about the Article of no Spirits no Resurrection though in the Church of the Jews the contrary was the more prevailing opinion so did the Eutychians upon a pretence of a Substantial conversion in the Sacrament which was then their fancy and devised to illustrate their other opinion But it was disavowed by the Catholicks 31. Gelasius was ingaged against the same persons in the same cause and therefore it will be needful to say nothing but to describe his words For they must have the same efficacy with the former and prevail equally Certè Sacramenta c. Truly the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we receive are a Divine thing for that by them we are made partakers of the Divine nature and yet it ceases not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine And truly an image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries These are his words concerning which this only is to be considered beyond what I suggested concerning Theodoret that although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek which we render substantia might be apt to receive divers interpretations though in his discourse he confined it to his proper meaning as appears above yet in Gelasius who was a Latin Author the word substantia is not capable of it and I think there is no example where substantia is taken for an accidental nature It may as all other words can suffer alterations by tropes and figures but never signifie grammatically any thing but it self and his usual significations and if there be among us any use of Lexicons or Vocabularies if there be any notices conveyed to men by forms of speech then we are sure in these things and there is no reason we should suffer our selves to be out-faced out of the use of our senses and our reason and our language It is usually here replied that Gelasius was an obscurer person Bishop of Caesarea and not Pope of Rome as is supposed I answer that he was Bishop of Rome that writ the book out of which these words are taken is affirmed in the Bibliotheca PP approved by the Theological faculty in Paris 1576 and Massonius de Episcopis urbis Romae in the life of Pope Gelasius saith that Pope John cited the book de duabus naturis and by Fulgentius it is so too 2. But suppose he was not Pope that he was a Catholick Bishop is not denied and that he lived above a 1000 years ago which is all I require in this business For any other Bishop may speak truth as well as the Bishop of Rome and his truth shall be of equal interest and perswasion But so strange a resolution men have taken to defend their own opinions that they will in despite of all sence and reason say something to every thing and that shall be an answer whether it can or no. 32. After all this it is needless to cite authorities from the later ages It were Indeed easie to heap up many and those not obscure either in their name or in their testimony Such as Facundus Bishop of Hermian in Africa in the year 552. in his ninth book and last Chapter written in defence of Theod. Mopsuest c. hath these words The Sacrament of his body and blood we call his body and blood not that bread is properly his body or the cup his blood
fuit dogma fidei said Scotus it was no Article of Faith and how it can be afterwards since Christ is only the Author and finisher of our Faith and therefore all Faith was delivered from the beginning is a matter of highest danger and consideration But yet this also I shall interpose if it may do any service in the question or help to remove a prejudice from our adversaries who are born up by the authority of that Council That the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not determined by the great Lateran Council The word was first invented by Stephen Bishop of Augustodunum about the year 1100 or a little after in his book De Sacramento Altaris and the word did so please Pope Innocentius III. that he inserted it into one of the 70 Canons which he proposed to the Lateran Council A. D. 1215. which Canons they heard read but determined nothing concerning them as Matthew Paris Platina and Nauclerus witness But they got reputation by being inserted by Gregory IX into his Decretals which yet he did not in the name of the Council but of Innocentius to the Council But the first that ever published these Canons under the name of the Lateran Council was Johannes Cochlaeus A. D. 1538. But the Article was determined at Rome 36 years after that Council by a general Council of 54 Prelates and no more And this was the first authority or countenance it had Stephen christened the Article and gave the name and this Congregation confirmed it SECT XIII Of Adoration of the Sacrament WHEN a proposition goes no further than the head and the tongue it can carry nothing with it but his own appendages viz. to be right or to be wrong and the man to be deceived or not deceived in his judgment But when it hath influence upon practice it puts on a new investiture and is tolerable or intolerable according as it leads to actions good or bad Now in all the questions of Christendom nothing is of greater effect or more material event than this For since by the decree of the Council of Trent they are bound to exhibit to the Sacrament the same worship which they give to the true God either this Sacrament is Jesus Christ or else they are very Idolaters I mean materially such even while in their purposes they decline it I will not quarrel with the words of the decree commanding to give Divine worship to the Sacrament which by the definition of their own Schools is an outward visible sign of an inward Spiritual grace and so they worship the sign and the grace with the worship due to God But that which I insist upon is this That if they be deceived in this difficult question against which there lie such infinite presumptions and evidence of sense and invincible reason and grounds of Scripture * and in which they are condemned by the Primitive Church and by the common principles of all Philosophy and the nature of things * and the analogy of the Sacrament * for which they had no warrant ever till they made one of their own * which themselves so little understand that they know not how to explicate it * nor agree in their own meaning nor cannot tell well what they mean * If I say they be deceived in their own strict Article besides the strict sence of which there are so many ways of verifying the words of Christ upon which all sides do rely then it is certain they commit an act of Idolatry in giving Divine honour to a meer creature which is the image the Sacrament and representment of the body of Christ and at least it is not certain that they are right there are certainly very great probabilities against them which ought to abate their confidence in the Article and though I am perswaded that the arguments against them are unanswerable for if I did not think so then I shall be able to answer them and if I were able to answer I would not seek to perswade others by that which does not perswade me yet all indifferent persons that is all those who will suffer themselves to be determined by some thing besides interest and education must needs say they cannot be certain they are right against whom there are so many arguments that they are in the wrong The Commandment to worship God alone is so express The distance between God and bread dedicated to the service of God is so vast the danger of worshipping that which is not God or of not worshipping that which is God is so formidable that it is infinitely to be presumed that if it had been intended that we should have worshipped the holy Sacrament the holy Scripture would have called it God or Jesus Christ or have bidden us in express terms to have adored it that either by the first as by a reason indicative or by the second as by a reason imperative we might have had sufficient warrant direct or consequent to have paid a Divine worship Now that there is no implicit warrant in the Sacramental words of This is my body I have given very many reasons to evince by proving the words to be Sacramental and figurative Add to this that supposing Christ present in their sences yet as they have ordered the business they have made it superstitious and Idololatrical for they declare that the Divine worship does belong also to the symbols of bread and wine as being one with Christ they are the words of Bellarmine That even the Species also with Christ are to be adored So Suarez which doctrine might upon the supposal of their grounds be excused if as Claudius de Sainctes dreamed they and the body of Christ had but one existence but this themselves admit not of but he is confuted by Suarez But then let it be considered that since those species or accidents are not inherent in the holy body nor have their existence from it but wholly subsist by themselves as they dream since between them and the holy body there is no substantial no personal union it is not imaginable how they can pass Divine worship to those accidents which are not in the body nor the same with the body but by an impossible supposition subsist of themselves and were proper to bread and now not communicable to Christ and yet not commit idolatry especially since the Nestorians were by the Fathers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or worshippers of a man because they worshipped the humanity of Christ which they supposed not to be personally but habitually united to the Divinity 2. But secondly Suppose that the Article were true in Thesi and that the bread in consecration was changed as they suppose yet it is to be considered that that which is practicable in this Article is yet made as uncertain and dangerous as before For by many defects secret and insensible by many notorious and evident the change may be hindred and the symbols still remain as very bread
esteem our selves oblig'd to warn the People of their danger and to depart from it and call upon them to stand upon the wayes and ask after the old paths and walk in them lest they partake of that curse which is threatned by God to them who remove the ancient Land-marks which our Fathers in Christ have set for us Now that the Church of Rome cannot pretend that all which she imposes is Primitive and Apostolick appears in this That in the Church of Rome there is pretence made to a power not only of declaring new Articles of faith but of making new Symbols or Creeds and imposing them as of necessity to Salvation Which thing is evident in the Bull of Pope Leo the tenth against Martyn Luther in which amongst other things he is condemn'd for saying It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or Pope to constitute Articles of Faith We need not add that this power is attributed to the Bishops of Rome by Turrecremata Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona Petrus de Ancorano and the Famous Abbot of Panormo that the Pope cannot only make new Creeds but new Articles of Faith that he can make that of necessity to be believ'd which before never was necessary that he is the measure and rule and the very notice of all credibilities That the Canon Law is the Divine Law and whatever Law the Pope promulges God whose Vicar he is is understood to be the Promulger That the souls of Men are in the hands of the Pope and that in his arbitration Religion doth consist which are the very words of Hostiensis and Ferdinandus ab Inciso who were Casuists and Doctors of Law of great authority amongst them and renown The thing it self is not of dubioâ—â— disputation amongst them but actually practis'd in the greatest Instances as is to be seen in the Bull of Pius the fourth at the end of the Council of Trent by which all Ecclesiasticks are not only bound to swear to all the Articles of the Council of Trent for the present and for the future but they are put into a new Symbol or Creed and they are corroborated by the same decretory clauses that are us'd in the Creed of Athanasius That this is the true Catholick Faith and that without this no Man can be saved Now since it cannot be imagined that this power to which they pretend should never have been reduc'd to act and that it is not credible they should publish so invidious and ill-sounding Doctrine to no purpose and to serve no end it may without further evidence be believed by all discerning persons that they have need of this Doctrine or it would not have been taught and that consequently without more ado it may be concluded that some of their Articles are parts of this new faith and that they can therefore in no sence be Apostolical unless their being Roman makes them so To this may be added another consideration not much less material that besides what Eckius told the Elector of Bavaria that the Doctrines of Luther might be overthrown by the Fathers though not by Scripture they have also many gripes of Conscience concerning the Fathers themselves that they are not right on their side and of this they have given but too much demonstration by their Expurgatory indices The Serpent by being so curious a defender of his head shews where his danger is and by what he can most readily be destroyed But besides their innumerable corruptings of the Fathers Writings their thrusting in that which was spurious and like Pharaoh killing the legitimate Sons of Israel though in this they have done very much of their work and made the Testimonies of the Fathers to be a record infinitely worse than of themselves uncorrupted they would have been of which divers Learned Persons have made publick complaint and demonstration they have at last fallen to a new trade which hath caus'd more disreputation to them than they have gain'd advantage and they have virtually confess'd that in many things the Fathers are against them For first the King of Spain gave a Commission to the Inquisitors to purge all Catholick Authors but with this clause Iique ipsi privatim nullisque consciis apud se indicem expurgatorium habebunt quem eundum neque aliis communicabunt neque ejus exemplum ulli dabunt that they should keep the expurgatory Index privately neither imparting that Index nor giving a copy of it to any But it happened by the Divine Providence so ordering it that about thirteen years after a copy of it was gotten and published by Johannes Pappus and Franciscus Junius and since it came abroad against their wills they find it necessary now to own it and they have printed it themselves Now by these expurgatory Tables what they have done is known to all Learned Men. In Saint Chrysostom's Works printed at Basil these words The Church is not built upon the Man but upon the Faith are commanded to be blotted out and these There is no merit but what is given us by Christ and yet these words are in his Sermon upon Pentecost and the former words are in his first Homily upon that of Saint John Ye are my friends c. The like they have done to him in many other places and to Saint Ambrose and to Saint Austin and to them all insomuch that Ludovicus Saurius the Corrector of the Press at Lyons shewed and complain'd of it to Junius that he was forc'd to cancellate or blot out many sayings of Saint Ambrose in that Edition of his Works which was printed at Lyons 1559. So that what they say on occasion of Bertram's Book In the old Catholick Writers we suffer very many errors and extenuate and excuse them and finding out some Commentary we feign some convenient sence when they are oppos'd in disputations they do indeed practise but esteem it not sufficient for the words which make against them they wholly leave out of their Editions Nay they correct the very Tables or Indices made by the Printers or Correctors insomuch that out of one of Froben's Indices they have commanded these words to be blotted The use of Images forbidden The Eucharist no Sacrifice but the memory of a Sacrifice Works although they do not justifie yet are necessary to Salvation Marriage is granted to all that will nor contain Venial sins damn The dead Saints after this life cannot help us nay out of the Index of Saint Austin's Works by Claudius Chevallonius at Paris 1531. there is a very strange deleatur Dele Solus Deus adorandus that God alone is to be worshipped is commanded to be blotted out as being a dangerous Doctrine These Instances may serve instead of multitudes which might be brought of their corrupting the Witnesses and razing the Records of Antiquity that the errors and Novelties of the Church of Rome might not be so easily reprov'd Now if
place and Religion into vanity and our hope in God to a confidence in man and our fears of hell to be a meer scare-crow to rich and confident sinners and at last it was frugally employed by a great Pope to raise a portion for a Lady the Wife of Franceschet to Cibo Bastard Son of Pope Innocent the eighth and the merchandize it self became the stakes of Gamesters at Dice and Cards and men did vile actions that they might win Indulgences by Gaming making their way to Heaven easier Now although the Holy Fathers of the Church could not be suppos'd in direct terms to speak against this new Doctrine of Indulgences because in their dayes it was not yet they have said many things which do perfectly destroy this new Doctrine and these unchristian practises For besides that they teach repentance wholly reducing us to a good life a faith that intirely relies upon Christ's merits and satisfactions a hope wholly depending upon the plain promises of the Gospel a service perfectly consisting in the works of a good conscience a labour of love a religion of justice and piety and moral vertues they do also expresly teach that pilgrimages to holy places and such like inventions which are now the earnings and price of Indulgences are not requir'd of us and are not the way of salvation as is to be seen in an Oration made by Saint Gregory Nyssene wholly against pilgrimages to Jerusalem in Saint Chrysostom Saint Augustine and Saint Bernard The sence of these Fathers is this in the words of Saint Augustine God said not Go to the East and seek righteousness sail to the West that you may receive indulgence But indulge thy brother and it shall be indulg'd to thee you have need to inquire for no other indulgence to thy sins if thou wilt retire into the closet of thy heart there thou shalt find it That is All our hopes of Indulgence is from GOD through JESVS CHRIST and is wholly to be obtain'd by faith in Christ and perseverance in good works and intire mortification of all our sins To conclude this particular Though the gains which the Church of Rome makes of Indulgences be a heap almost as great as the abuses themselves yet the greatest Patrons of this new Doctrine could never give any certainty or reasonable comfort to the Conscience of any person that could inquire into it They never durst determine whether they were Absolutions or Compensations whether they only take off the penances actually impos'd by the Confessor or potentially and all that which might have been impos'd whether all that may be paid in the Court of men or all that can or will be required by the Laws and severity of God Neither can they speak rationally to the Great Question Whether the Treasure of the Church consists of the Satisfactions of Christ only or of the Saints For if of Saints it will by all men be acknowledged to be a defeisible estate and being finite and limited will be spent sooner than the needs of the Church can be served and if therefore it be necessary to add the merits and satisfaction of Christ since they are an Ocean of infinity and can supply more than all our needs to what purpose is it to add the little minutes and droppings of the Saints They cannot tell whether they may be given if the Receiver do nothing or give nothing for them And though this last particular could better be resolv'd by the Court of Rome than by the Church of Rome yet all the Doctrines which built up the new Fabrick of Indulgences were so dangerous to determine so improbable so unreasonable or at best so uncertain and invidious that according to the advice of the Bishop of Modena the Council of Trent left all the Doctrines and all the cases of Conscience quite alone and slubber'd the whole matter both in the Question of Indulgences and Purgatory in general and recommendatory terms affirming that the power of giving Indulgence is in the Church and that the use is wholesome And that all hard and subtil Questions viz. concerning Purgatory which although if it be at all it is a fire yet is the fuel of Indulgences and maintains them wholly all that is suspected to be false and all that is uncertain and whatsoever is curious and superstitious scandalous or for filthy lucre be laid aside And in the mean time they tell us not what is and what is not Superstitious nor what is scandalous nor what they mean by the general term of Indulgence and they establish no Doctrine neither curious nor incurious nor durst they decree the very foundation of this whole matter The Churches Treasure Neither durst they meddle with it but left it as they found it and continued in the abuses and proceeded in the practice and set their Doctors as well as they can to defend all the new and curious and scandalous Questions and to uphold the gainful trade But however it be with them the Doctrine it self is prov'd to be a direct Innovation in the matter of Christian Religion and that was it which we have undertaken to demonstrate SECT IV. THE Doctrine of Purgatory is the Mother of Indulgences and the fear of that hath introduc'd these For the world happened to be abus'd like the Countrey-man in the Fable who being told he was likely to fall into a delirium in his feet was advis'd for remedy to take the juyce of Cotton He feared a disease that was not and look'd for a cure as ridiculous But if the Patent of Indulgences be not from Christ and his Apostles if upon this ground the Primitive Church never built the Superstructures of Rome must fall they can be no stronger than their Supporter Now then in order to the proving the Doctrine of Purgatory to be an Innovation 1. We consider That the Doctrines upon which it is pretended reasonable are all dubious and disputable at the very best Such are 1. Their distinction of sins Mortal and Venial in their own nature 2. That the taking away the guilt of sins does not suppose the taking away the obligation to punishment that is That when a mans sin is pardoned he may be punished without the guilt of that sin as justly as with it as if the guilt could be any thing else but an obligation to punishment for having sinned which is a Proposition of which no wise man can make sence but it is certain that it is expresly against the Word of God who promises upon our repentance so to take away our sins that he will remember them no more And so did Christ to all those to whom he gave pardon for he did not take our faults and guilt on him any other way but by curing our evil hearts and taking away the punishment And this was so perfectly believ'd by the Primitive Church that they alwayes made the penances and satisfaction to be undergone before they gave absolution and
but the confession and acknowledgment of the greatest Doctors of the Church of Rome Scotus sayes that before the Lateran Council Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith as Bellarmine confesses and and Henriquez affirms that Scotus sayes it was not ancient insomuch that Bellarmine accuses him of ignorance saying he talk'd at that rate because he had not read the Roman Council under Pope Gregory the Seventh nor that consent of Fathers which to so little purpose he had heap'd together Rem transubstantiationis Patres ne attigisse quidem said some of the English Jesuits in Prison The Fathers have not so much as touch'd or medled with the matter of Transubstantiation and in Peter Lombard's time it was so far from being an Article of Faith or a Catholick Doctrine that they did not know whether it were true or no And after he had collected the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article he confess'd He could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no. His words are these If it be inquir'd what kind of conversion it is whether it be formal or substantial or of another kind I am not able to define it Only I know that it is not formal because the same accidents remain the same colour and taste To some it seems to be substantial saying that so the substance is chang'd into the substance that it is done essentially To which the former Authorities seem to consent But to this sentence others oppose these things If the substance of Bread and Wine be substantially converted into the Body and Blood of Christ then every day some substance is made the Body or Blood of Christ which before was not the body and to day something is Christ's Body which yesterday was not and every day Christ's Body is increased and is made of such matter of which it was not made in the Conception These are his words which we have remark'd not only for the Arguments sake though it be unanswerable but to give a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine was new not the Doctrine of the Church And this was written but about fifty years before it was said to be decreed in the Lateran Council and therefore it made haste in so short time to pass from a disputable Opinion to an Article of Faith But even after the Council Durandus as good a Catholick and as famous a Doctor as any was in the Church of Rome publickly maintain'd that even after consecration the very matter of bread remain'd And although he sayes that by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held yet it is not only possible it should be so but it implies no contradiction that it should be Christ's Body and yet the matter of bread remain and if this might be admitted it would salve many difficulties which arise from saying that the substance of bread does not remain But here his reason was overcome by authority and he durst not affirm that of which alone he was able to give as he thought a reasonable account But by this it appears that the Opinion was but then in the forge and by all their understanding they could never accord it but still the Questions were uncertain according to that old Distich Corpore de Christi lis est de sanguine lis est Déque modo lis est non habitura modum And the Opinion was not determin'd in the Lateran as it is now held at Rome but it is also plain that it is a stranger to Antiquity De Transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in Antiquis scriptoribus mentio said Alphonsus à Castro There is seldom mention made in the ancient Writers of transubstantiating the bread into Christ's Body We know the modesty and interest of the man he would not have said it had been seldom if he could have found it in any reasonable degree warranted he might have said and justified it There was no mention at all of this Article in the Primitive Church And that it was a meer stranger to Antiquity will not be deny'd by any sober person who considers That it was with so much uneasiness entertained even in the corruptest and most degenerous times and argued and unsetled almost 1300. years after Christ. And that it was so will but too evidently appear by that stating and resolution of this Question which we find in the Canon Law For Berengarius was by Pope Nicolaus commanded to recant his error in these words and to affirm Verum corpus sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi sensualiter non solùm in sacramento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri That the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ sensually not only in Sacrament but in truth is handled by the Priests hands and broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful Now although this was publickly read at Rome before an hundred and fourteen Bishops and by the Pope sent up and down the Churches of Italy France and Germany yet at this day it is renounc'd by the Church of Rome and unless it be well expounded sayes the Gloss will lead into a heresie greater than what Berengarius was commanded to renounce and no interpretation can make it tolerable but such an one as is in another place of the Canon Law Statuimus i. e. abrogamus nothing but a plain denying it in the sence of Pope Nicolas But however this may be it is plain they understood it not as it is now decreed But as it happened to the Pelagians in the beginning of their Heresie they spake rudely ignorantly and easily to be reprov'd but being asham'd and disputed into a more sober understanding of their hypothesis spake more warily but yet differently from what they said at first so it was and is in this Question at first they understood it not it was too unreasonable in any tolerable sence to make any thing of it but experience and necessity hath brought it to what it is But that this Doctrine was not the Doctrine of the first and best Ages of the Church these following testimonies do make evident The words of Tertullian are these The bread being taken and distributed to his Disciples Christ made it his Body saying This is my Body that is the figure of my Body SECT II. Of PVRGATORY THAT the doctrine of Purgatory as it is taught in the Roman Church is a Novelty and a part of their New Religion is sufficiently attested by the words of the Cardinal of Rochester and Alphonsus à Castro whose words I now add that he who pleases may see how these new men would fain impose their new fancies upon the Church under pretence and title of Ancient and Catholick verities The words of Roffensis in his eighteenth article against Luther are these Legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios nullum quantum
opinor aut quam rarissimum de purgatorio sermonem inveniet Sed neque Latini simul omnes at sensim hujus rei veritatem conceperunt He that pleases let him read the Commentaries of the Old Greeks and as I suppose he shall find none or very rare mention or speech of Purgatory But neither did all the Latins at one time but by little and little conceive the truth of this thing And again Aliquandin incognitum fuit serò cognitum Vniversae Ecclesiae Deinde quibusdam pedetentim partim ex Scripturis partim ex revelationibus creditum fuit For somewhile it was unknown it was but lately known to the Catholick Church Then it was believ'd by some by little and little partly from Scripture partly from revelations And this is the goodly ground of the doctrine of Purgatory founded no question upon tradition Apostolical delivered some hundreds of years indeed after they were dead but the truth is because it was forgotten by the Apostles and they having so many things in their heads when they were alive wrote and said nothing of it therefore they took care to send some from the dead who by new revelations should teach this old doctrine This we may conjecture to be the equivalent sence of the plain words of Roffensis But the plain words are sufficient without a Commentary Now for Polydore Virgil his own words can best tell what he says The words I have put into the Margent because they are many the sence of them is this 1. He finds no use of Indulgences before the stations of S. Gregory the consequent of that is that all the Latin Fathers did not receive them before S. Gregorie's time and therefore they did not receive them all together 2. The matter being so obscure Polydore chose to express his sence in the testimony of Roffensis 3. From him he affirms that the use of Indulgences is but new and lately received amongst Christians 4. That there is no certainty concerning their original 5. They report that amongst the Ancient Latins there was some use of them But it is but a report for he knows nothing of it before S. Gregorie's time and for that also he hath but a mere report 6. Amongst the Greeks it is not to this day believ'd 7. As long as there was no care of Purgatory no man look'd after Indulgences because if you take away Purgatory there is no need of Indulgences 8. That the use of Indulgences began after men had a while trembled at the torments of Purgatory This if I understand Latin or common sence is the doctrine of Polydore Virgil and to him I add also the testimony of Alphonsus à Castro De Purgatorio fere nulla mentio potissimum apud Graecos scriptores Qua de causa usque hodiernum diem purgatorium non est à Graecis creditum The consequent of these things is this If Purgatory was not known to the Primitive Church if it was but lately known to the Catholick Church if the Fathers seldom or never make mention of it If in the Greek Church especially there was so great silence of it that to this very day it is not believed amongst the Greeks then this Doctrine was not an Apostolical Doctrine not Primitive nor Catholick but an Innovation and of yesterday And this is of it self besides all these confessions of their own parties a suspicious matter because the Church of Rome does establish their Doctrine of Purgatory upon the Ancient use of the Church of praying for the dead But this consequence of theirs is wholly vain because all the Fathers did pray for the dead yet they never prayed for their deliverance out of Purgatory nor ever meant it To this it is thus objected It is confessed that they prayed for them that God would shew them a mercy Now Mark well If they be in Heaven they have a mercy the sentence is given for Eternal happiness If in Hell they are wholly destitute of mercy unless there be a third place where mercy can be shewed them I have according to my order mark'd it well but find nothing in it to purpose For though the Fathers prayed for the souls departed that God would shew them mercy yet it was that God would shew them mercy in the day of judgment In that formidable and dreadful day then there is need of much mercy unto us saith Saint Chrysostom And methinks this Gentleman should not have made use of so pitiful an Argument and would not if he had consider'd that Saint Paul prayed for Onesiphorus That God would shew him a mercy in that day that is in the day of Judgment as generally Interpreters Ancient and Modern do understand it and particularly Saint Chrysostom now cited The faithful departed are in the hands of Christ as soon as they die and they are very well and the souls of the wicked are where it pleases God to appoint them to be tormented by a fearful expectation of the revelation of the day of judgment but Heaven and Hell are reserved till the day of judgment and the Devils themselves are reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day saith Saint Jude and in that day they shall be sentenc'd and so shall all the wicked to everlasting fire which as yet is but prepar'd for the Devil and his Angels for ever But is there no mercy to be shewed to them unless they be in Purgatory Some of the Ancients speak of visitation of Angels to be imparted to the souls departed and the hastening of the day of judgment is a mercy and the avenging of the Martyrs upon their Adversaries is a mercy for which the Souls under the Altar pray saith Saint John in the Revelation and the Greek Fathers speak of a fiery trial at the day of judgment through which every one must pass and there will be great need of mercy And after all this there is a remission of sins proper to this world when God so pardons that he gives the grace of repentance that he takes his judgments off from us that he gives us his holy Spirit to mortifie our sins that he admits us to work in his Laboratory that he sustains us by his power and promotes us by his Grace and stands by us favourably while we work out our salvation with fear and trembling and at last he crowns us with perseverance But at the day of Judgment there shall be a pardon of sins that will crown this pardon when God shall pronounce us pardon'd before all the world and when Christ shall actually and presentially rescue us from all the pains which our sins have deserved even from everlasting pain And that 's the final pardon for which till it be accomplished all the faithful do night and day pray incessantly although to many for whom they do pray they friendly believe that it is now certain that they shall then be glorified Saepissime petuntur illa quae
of their Goods Ridiculous What then Saint Austin himself tells us by so much as they lov'd their goods more or less by so much sooner or later they shall be sav'd And what he said of this kind of sin viz. too much worldliness with the same Reason he might suppose of others this he thought possible but of this he was not sure and therefore it was not then an Article of Faith and though now the Church of Rome hath made it so yet it appears that it was not so from the beginning but is part of their new fashion'd faith And E. W. striving so impossibly and so weakly to avoid the pressure of this Argument should do well to consider whether he have not more strained his Conscience than the words of Saint Austin But this matter must not pass thus Saint Austin repeats this whole passage verbatim in his Answer to the 8. Quest. of Dulcitius Quest. 1. and still answers in this and other appendant Questions of the same nature viz. Whether Prayers for the dead be available c. Quest. 2. And whether upon the instant of Christ's appearing he will pass to judgment Quest 3. In these things which we have describ'd our and the infirmity of others may be so exercis'd and instructed nevertheless that they pass not for Canonical Authority And in the Answer to the first Question he speaks in the style of a doubtful person Whether men suffer such things in this life only or also such certain judgments follow even after this life this Understanding of this sentence is not as I suppose abhorrent from truth The same words he also repeats in his Book de fide operibus Chap. 16. There is yet another place of S. Austin in which it is plain he still is a doubting person in the Question of Purgatory His sence is this After the death of the body until the resurrection if in the interval the spirits of the dead are said to suffer that kind of fire which they feel not who had not such manners and loves in their life-time that their wood hay and stubble ought to be consum'd but others feel who brought such buildings along with them whether there only or whether here and there or whether therefore here that it might not be there that they feel a fire of a transitory tribulation burning their secular buildings though escaping from damnation I reprove it not for peradventure it is true So Saint Austin's peradventure yea is alwayes peradventure nay and will the Bigots of the Roman Church be content with such a confession of faith as this of Saint Austin in the present Article I believe not But now after all this I will not deny but Saint Austin was much inclin'd to believe Purgatory fire and therefore I shall not trouble my self to answer the citations to that purpose which Bellarmine and from him these Transcribers bring out of this Father though most of them are drawn out of Apocryphal spurious and suspected pieces as his Homilies de S. S. c. yet that which I urge is this that Saint Austin did not esteem this to be a Doctrine of the Church no Article of Faith but a disputable Opinion and yet though he did incline to the wrong part of the Opinion yet it is very certain that he sometimes speaks expresly against this Doctrine and other times speaks things absolutely inconsistent with the Opinion of Purgatory which is more than an Argument of his confessed doubting for it is a declaration that he understood nothing certain in this affair but that the contrary to his Opinion was the more probable And this appears in these few following words Saint Austin hath these words Some suffer temporary punishments in this life only others after death others both now and then Bellarmine and from him Diaphanta urges this as a great proof of Saint Austin's Doctrine But he destroyes it in the words immediately following and makes it useless to the hypothesis of the Roman Church This shall be before they suffer the last and severest judgment meaning as Saint Austin frequently does such sayings of the General conflagration at the end of the world But whether he does so or no yet he adds But all of them come not into the everlasting punishments which after the Judgment shall be to them who after death suffer the temporary By which Doctrine of Saint Austin viz. that those who are in his Purgatory shall many of them be damn'd and the temporary punishments after death do but usher in the Eternal after judgment he destroyes the salt of the Roman fire who imagines that all that go to Purgatory shall be sav'd Therefore this testimony of Saint Austin as it is nothing for the avail of the Roman Purgatory so by the appendage it is much against it which Coquaeus Torrensis and especially Cardinal Perron observing have most violently corrupted these words by falsely translating them So Perron Tous ceux qui souffrent des peines temporelles apres lâ— mort ne viennent pas aux peines Eternelles qui auront tien apres le judgement which reddition is expresly against the sence of Saint Austin's words 2. But another hypothesis there is in Saint Austin to which without dubitation he does peremptorily adhere which I before intimated viz. that although he admit of Purgatory pains after this life yet none but such as shall be at the day of Judgment Whoever therefore desires to avoid the eternal pains let him be not only baptiz'd but also justified in Christ and truly pass from the Devil unto Christ. But let him not think that there shall be any Purgatory pains but before that last and dreadful Judgment meaning not only that there shall be none to cleanse them after the day of Judgment but that then at the approach of that day the General fire shall try and purge And so himself declares his own sence All they that have not Christ in the foundation are argued or reproved when in the day of Judgment but they that have Christ in the foundation are chang'd that is purg'd who build upon this foundation wood hay stubble So that in the day of Judgment the trial and escape shall be for then shall the trial and the condemnation be But yet more clear are his words in other places So at the setting of the Sun that is at the end viz. of the world the day of judgment is signified by that fire dividing the carnal which are to be sav'd by fire and those who are to be damned in the fire nothing is plainer than that Saint Austin understood that those who are to be sav'd so as by fire are to be sav'd by passing through the fire at the day of judgment that was his Opinion of Purgatory And again out of these things which are spoken it seems more evidently to appear that there shall be certain purgatory pains of some persons in that judgment For what thing else
then I quoted Otho according to my own sence and his but if he means it to be after the day of judgment then the limbus infantum of the Roman Church is vanish'd for the scruple was mov'd about Infants Quid de parvulis qui solo Originali delicto tenentur fiet And there is none such till after dooms day so that let it be as it will the Roman Church is a loser and therefore let them take their choice on which side they will fall But now after Saint Austin's time especially in the time of Saint Gregory and since there were many strange stories told of souls appearing after death and telling strange things of their torments below many of which being gather'd together by the speculum exemplorum the Legend of Lombardy and others some of them were noted by the Dissuasive to this purpose to shew that in the time when these stories were told the fire of Purgatory did not burn clear but they found Purgatory in Baths in Eves of Houses in Frosts and cold Rains upon Spits rosting like Pigs or Geese upon pieces of Ice Now to this there is nothing said but that in the place quoted in the speculum there is no such thing which saying as it was spoken invidiously so it was to no purpose for if the Objector ever hath read the distinction which is quoted throughout he should have found the whole story at large It is the 31 example page 205. Col. 1. printed at Doway 1603. And the same words are exactly in an ancienter Edition printed at the Imperial Town of Hagenaw 1519. Impensis Johannis Rynman But these Gentlemen care not for the force of any Argument if they can any way put it off from being believ'd upon any foolish pretence But then as to the thing it self though learned men deny the Dialogues of Saint Gregory from whence many of the like stories are deriv'd to be his as Possevine confesses and Melchior Canus though a little timorously affirms yet I am willing to admit them for his but yet I cannot but note that those Dialogues have in them many foolish ridiculous and improbable stories but yet they and their like are made a great ground of Purgatory but then the right also may be done to Saint Gregory his Doctrine of Purgatory cannot consist with the present Article of the Church of Rome so fond they are in the alledging of Authorities that they destroy their own hypothesis by their undiscerning quotations For 1. Saint Gregory Pope affirms that which is perfectly inconsistent with the whole Doctrine of Purgatory For he sayes That it is a fruit of our redemption by the grace of Christ our Author that when we are drawn from our dwelling in the body Mox forthwith we are lead to câ—lestial rewards and a little after speaking of those words of Job In profundissimum infernum descendunt omnia mea he sayes thus Since it is certain that in the lower region the just are not in penal places but are held in the superior bosom of rest a great question arises what is the meaning of Blessed Job If Purgatory can stand with this hypothesis of Saint Gregory then fire and water can be reconcil'd This is the Doctrine of Saint Gregory in his own works for whether the Dialogues under his name be his or no I shall not dispute but if I were studying to do honour to his memory I should never admit them to be his and so much the rather because the Doctrine of the Dialogues contradicts the Doctrine of his Commentaries and yet even the Purgatory which is in the Dialogues is unlike that which was declar'd at Basil for the Gregorian Purgatory supposed only an expiation of small and light faults as immoderate laughter impertinent talking which nevertheless he himself sayes are expiable by fear of death and Victoria and Jacobus de Graffis say are to be taken away by beating the breast holy water the Bishops blessing and Saint Austin sayes they are to be taken off by daily saying the Lords prayer and therefore being so easily so readily so many wayes to be purg'd here it will not be worth establishing a Purgatory for such alone but he admits not of any remaining punishment due to greater sins forgiven by the blood of Christ. But concerning Saint Gregory I shall say no more but refer the Reader to the Apology of the Greeks who affirm that Saint Gregory admitted a kind of Purgatory but whether allegorically or no or thinking so really they know not but what he said was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by way of dispensation and as it were constrained to it by the Arguments of those who would have all sins expiable after death against whom he could not so likely prevail if he had said that none was and therefore he thought himself forc'd to go a middle way and admit a Purgatory only for little or venial sins which yet will do no advantage to the Church of Rome And besides all this Saint Gregory or whoever is the Author of these Dialogues hath nothing definite or determin'd concerning the time manner measure or place so wholly new was this Doctrine then that it had not gotten any shape or feature Next I am to account concerning the Greeks whom I affirm alwayes to have differed from the Latins since they had forg'd this new Doctrine of Purgatory in the Roman Laboratories and to prove something of this I affirm'd that in the Council of Basil they publish'd an Apology directly disapproving the Doctrine of Purgatory Against this up starts a man fierce and angry and sayes there was no such Apology publish'd in the Council of Basil for he had examined it all over and can find no such Apology I am sorry for the Gentlemans loss of his labour but if he had taken me along with him I could have help'd the learned man This Apology was written by Marcus Metropolitan of Ephesus as Sixtus Senensis confesses and that he offered it to the Council of Basil. That it was given and read to the Deputies of the Council June 14. 1438. is attested by Cusanus and Martinus Crusius in his Turco-Graecia But it is no wonder if this over-learned Author of the Letter miss'd this Apology in his search of the Council of Basil for this is not the only material thing that is missing in the Editions of the Council of Basil for Linwood that great and excellent English Canonist made an Appeal in that Council and prosecuted it with effect in behalf of King Henry of England Cum in temporalibus non recognoscat superiorem in terris c. But nothing of this now appears though it was then registred but it is no new thing to forge or to suppress Acts of Councils But besides this I did not suppose he would have been so indiscreet as to have look'd for that Apology in the Editions of the Council of Basil but it was deliver'd to the
and before the day of Judgment any souls are translated into a state of bliss out of a state of pain that is that from Purgatory they go to heaven before the day of Judgment He that can shew this will teach me what I have not yet learned but he that cannot shew it must not pretend that the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory was ever known to the Ancient Fathers of the Church SECT III. Of Transubstantiation THE purpose of the Dissuasive was to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be new neither Catholick nor Apostolick In order to which I thought nothing more likely to perswade or dissuade than the testimonies of the parties against themselves And although I have many other inducements as will appear in the sequel yet by so earnestly contending to invalidate the truth of the quotations the Adversaries do confess by implication if these sayings be as is pretended then I have evinc'd my main point viz. that the Roman doctrines as differing from us are novelties and no parts of the Catholick faith Thus therefore the Author of the letter begins He quotes Scotus as declaring the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible which he saith not To the same purpose he quotes Ocham but I can find no such thing in him To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis but he hath no such thing But in order to the verification of what I said I desire it be first observ'd what I did say for I did not deliver it so crudely as this Gentleman sets it down For 1. These words the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible are not the words of all them before nam'd they are the sence of them all but the words but of one or two of them 2. When I say that some of the Roman Writers say that Transubstantiation is not express'd in the Scripture I mean and so I said plainly as without the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of it Now then for the quotations themselves I hope I shall give a fair account 1. The words quoted are the words of Biel when he had first affirmed that Christs body is contained truly under the bread and that it is taken by the faithful all which we believe and teach in the Church of England he adds Tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum that is the way of Transubstantiation an sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi 〈◊〉 pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canâ—ne Biblii and that 's the way of Consubstantiation so that here is expresly taught what I affirm'd was taught that the Scriptures did not express the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and he adds that concerning this there were Anciently divers opinions Thus far the quotation is right But of this man there is no notice taken But what of Scotus He saith no such thing well suppose that yet I hope this Gentleman will excuse me for Bellarmines sake who says the same thing of Scotus as I do and he might have found it in the Margent against the quotation of Scotus if he had pleas'd His words are these Secondly he saith viz. Scotus that there is not extant any place of Scripture so express without the declaration of the Church that it can compel us to admit of Transubstantiation And this is not altogether improbable For though the Scriptures which we brought above seem so clear to us that it may compel a man that is not wilful yet whether it be so or no it may worthily be doubted since most learned and acute men such as Scotus eminently was believe the contrary Well! But the Gentleman can find no such thing in Ocham I hope he did not look far for Ocham is not the man I mean however the Printer might have mistaken but it is easily pardonable because from O. Cam. meaning Odo Cameracensis it was easie for the Printer or transcriber to write Ocam as being of more publick name But the Bishop of Cambray is the man that followed Scotus in this opinion and is acknowledged by Bellarmine to have said the same that Scotus did he being one of his docti acutissimi viri there mentioned Now if Roffensis have the same thing too this Author of the Letter will have cause enough to be a little ashamed And for this I shall bring his words speaking of the whole institution of the Blessed Sacrament by our blessed Saviour he says Neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fierâ— carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam I suppose I need to say no more to verifie these citations but yet I have another very good witness to prove that I have said true and that is Salmeron who says that Scotus out of Innocentius reckons three opinions not of hereticks but of such men who all agreed in that which is the main but he adds Some men and writers believe that this article cannot be proved against a heretick by Scripture alone or reasons alone And so Cajetan is affirm'd by Suarez and Alanus to have said and Melchior Canus perpetuam Mariae virginitatem conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi non ita expressa in libris Canonicis invenies sed adeo tamen certa in â—ide sunt ut contrariorum dogmatum authores Ecclesia haereticos judicarit So that the Scripture is given up for no sure friend in this Q. the Article wholly relies upon the authority of the Church viz. of Rome who makes faith and makes heresies as she please But to the same purpose is that also which Chedzy said in his disputation at Oxford In what manner Christ is there whether with the bread Transelemented or Transubstantiation the Scripture in open words tells not But I am not likely so to escape for E. W. talks of a famous or rather infamous quotation out of Peter Lombard and adds foul and uncivil words which I pass by but the thing is this that I said Petrus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no. I did say so and I brought the very words of Lombard to prove it and these very words E. W. himself acknowledges Si autem quaeritur qualis sit ista conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio I am not able to define or determine whether that change be formal or substantial So far E. W. quotes him but leaves out one thing very material viz. whether besides formal or substantial it be of another kind Now E. W. not being able to deny that Lombard said this takes a great deal of useless pains not one word of all that he says being to the purpose or able to make it probable that Peter Lombard did not say so or that he did not think so
but some few instead of many but those most easie to be done and most glorious to be understood and most pure in their observation our Lord himself and the Apostolical discipline hath delivered such is the Sacrament of Baptism and the celebration of the body and blood of our Lord which when every one takes he understands whither they may be referr'd that he may give them veneration not with carnal service but with a spiritual liberty For as to follow the letter and to take the signs for the things signified by them is a servile infirmity so to interpret the signs unprofitably is an evil wandring error But he that understands not what the sign signifies but yet understandeth it to be a sign is not press'd with servitude But it is better to be press'd with unknown signs so they be profitable than by expounding them unprofitably to thrust our necks into the yoke of slavery from which they were brought fâ—â—th All this S. Austin spake concerning the sacramental signs the bread and the wine in the Eucharist and if by these words he does not intend to affirm that they are the signs signifying Christs body and blood let who please to undertake it make sence of them for my part I cannot To the same purpose are these other words of his Christ is in himself once immolated and yet in the Sacrament he is sacrificed not only in the solemnities of Easter but every day with the people Neither indeed does he lye who being ask'd shall answer that he is sacrificed For if the Sacraments have not a similitude of those things of which they are Sacraments they were altogether no Sacraments but commonly for this similitude they take the names of the things themselves sicut ergo secundum quendam modum c. As therefore after a certain manner the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the Sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ so the Sacrament of Faith viz. Baptism is Faith Christ is but once immolated or sacrificed in himself but every day in the Sacrament that properly this in figure that in substance this in similitude that naturally this sacramentally and spiritually But therefore we call this mystery a sacrifice as we call the Sacrament Christs body viz. by way of similitude or after a certain manner for upon this account the names of the things are imputed to their very figures This is S. Austins sence which indeed he frequently so expresses Now I desire it may be observed that oftentimes when S. Austin speaking of the Eucharist calls it the body and blood of Christ he oftentimes adds by way of explication that he means it in the Sacramental figurative sence but whenever he calls it the figure or the Sacrament of Christs body he never offers to explain that by any words by which he may signifie such a real or natural being of Christs body there as the Church of Rome dreams of but he ought not neither would be have given offence or Umbrage to the Church by any such incurious and loose handling of things if the Church in his age had thought of it otherwise than that it was Christs body in a Sacramental sence Though I have remark'd all that is objected by A. L. yet E. W. is not satisfied with the quotation out of Greg. Naz. not but that he acknowledges it to be right for be sets down the words in Latin but they conclude nothing against Transubstantiation Why so because though the Paschal was a type of a type a figure of a figure yet in S. Gregories sence Christ concealed under the species of bread may be rightly called a figure of its own self more clearly hereafter to be shewed us in Heaven To this pitiful answer the reply is easie S. Gregory clearly enough expresses himself that in the immolation of the Passeover Christ was figured that in the Eucharist he still is figured there more obscurely here more clearly but yet still but typically or in figure nunc quidem adhuc typicè here we are partakers of him typically Afterwards we shall see him perfectly meaning in his Fathers Kingdom So that the Saint affirms Christ to be receiv'd by us in the Sacrament after a figurative or typical manner and therefore not after a substantial as that is oppos'd to figurative Now of what is this a type of himself to be more clearly seen in Heaven hereafter It is very true it is so for this whole ceremony and figurative ritual receiving of Christs body here does prefigure our more excellent receiving and enjoying him hereafter but then it follows that the very proper substance of Christs body is not here for figure or shadow and substance cannot be the same to say a thing that is present is a figure of it self hereafter is to be said by no man but him that cares not what he says Nemo est sui ipsius imago saith S. Hilary and yet if it were possible to be otherwise yet it is a strange figure or sign of a thing that what is invisible should be a sign of what is visible Bellarmine being greatly put to it by the Fathers calling the Sacrament the figure of Christs body says it is in some sence a figure of Christs body on the Cross and here E. W. would affirm out of Naz. that it is a figure of Christs body glorified Now suppose both these dreamers say right then this Sacrament which whether you look forwards or backwards is a figure of Christs body cannot be that body of which so 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 its 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 topick of Authority in this Question amongst the many reasons I urged against Transubstantiation 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
both often and many ways The Council was in the year 305. of 19. Bishops who in the 36. Canon decreed this placuit picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere It hath pleas'd us that pictures ought not to be in Churches That 's the decree The reason they give is ne quod colitur adoratur in parietibus depingatur lest that which is worshipped be painted on the walls So that there are two propositions 1. Pictures ought not to be in Churches 2. That which is worshipped ought not to be painted upon walls E. W. hath a very learned Note upon this Canon Mark first the Council supposeth worship and adoration due to pictures ne quod colitur adoratur By which Mark E. W. confesses that pictures are the object of his adoration and that the Council took no care and made no provision for the honour of God who is and ought to be worshipp'd and ador'd in Churches illi soli servies but only were good husbands for the pictures for fear 1. they should be spoiled by the moisture of the walls or 2. defaced by the Heathen the first of these is Bellarmines the latter is Perrons answer But too childish to need a severer consideration But how easie had it been for them to have commanded that all their pictures should have been in frames upon boards or cloth as it is in many Churches in Rome and other places 2. Why should the Bishops forbid pictures to be in Churches for fear of spoiling one kind of them they might have permitted others though not these 3. Why should any man be so vain as to think that in that age in which the Christians were in perpetual disputes against the Heathens for worshipping pictures and images they should be so curious to preserve their pictures and reserve them for â—doration 4. But then to make pictures to be the subject of that caution ne quod colitur adoratur and not to suppose God and his Christ to be the subject of it is so unlike the religion of Christians the piety of those ages the Oeconomy of the Church and the analogy of the Commandment that it betrays a refractory and heretical spirit in him that shall so perversly invent an Unreasonable Commentary rather than yield to so pregnant and easie testimony But some are wiser and consider that the Council takes not care that pictures be not spoil'd but that they be not in the Churches and that what is adorable be not there painted and not be not there spoiled The not painting them is the utmost of their design not the preserving them for we see vast numbers of them every where painted on walls and preserved well enough and easily repaired upon decay therefore this is too childish to blot them out for fear they be spoiled and not to bring them into Churches for fear they be taken out Agobardus Bishop of Lions above 800. years since cited this Canon in a book of his which he wrote de picturis imaginibus which was published by Papirius Massonus and thus illustrates it Recte saith he nimirum ob hujusmodi evacuandam superstitionem ab Orthodoxis patribus definitum est picturas in Ecclesia fieri non debere Nec quod colitur adoratur in parietibus depingatur Where first he expresly affirms these Fathers in this Canon to have intended only rooting up this superstition not the ridiculous preserving the pictures So it was Understood then But then 2. Agobardus reads it Nec not Ne quod colitur which reading makes the latter part of the Canon to be part of the sanction and no reason of the former decree pictures must not be made in Churches neither ought that to be painted upon walls which is worshipped and adored This was the doctrine and sentiment of the wise and good men above 800. years since By which also the Unreasonable supposition of Baronius that the Canon is not genuine is plainly confuted this Canon not being only in all copies of that Council but own'd for such by Agobardus so many ages before Baronius and so many ages after the Council And he is yet farther reproved by Cardinal Perron who tells a story that in Granada in memory of this Council they use frames for pictures and paint none upon the wall at this day It seems they in Granada are taught to understand that Canon according unto the sence of the Patrons of images and to mistake the plain meaning of the Council For the Council did not forbid only to paint upon the walls for that according to the common reading is but accidental to the decree but the Council commanded that no picture should be in Churches Now then let this Canon be confronted with the Council of Trent Sess. 25. decret de S. S. invoc Imagines Christi Deiparae virginis aliorum sanctorâ—m in templis praesertim habendas retinendas that the images of Christ and of the Virgin Mother of God and of other Saints be had and kept especially in Churches and in the world there cannot be a greater contradiction between two than there is between Eliberis and Trent the old and the new Church for the new Church not only commands pictures and images to be kept in Churches but paints them upon walls and neither fears thieves nor moisture There are divers other little answers amongst the Roman Doctors to this uneasie objection but they are only such as venture at the telling the secret reasons why the Council so decreed as Alan Cope saith it was so decreed lest the Christians should take them for Gods or lest the Heathen should think the Christians worshipped them so Sanders But it matters not for what reason they decreed Only if either of these say true then Bellarmine and Perron are false in their conjectures of the reason But it matters not for suppose all these reasons were concentred in the decree yet the decree it self is not observ'd at this day in the Roman Church but a doctrine and practice quite contrary introduced And therefore my opinion is that Melchior Canus answers best aut nimis duras aut parum rationi consentaneas à Consiliis provincialibus interdum editas non est negandum Qualis illa non impudenter modo verum etiam impie à Concilio Elibertino de tollendis imaginibus By this we may see not only how irreverently the Roman Doctors use the Fathers when they are not for their turns but we may also perceive how the Canon condemns the Roman doctrine and practice in the matter of images The next inquiry is concerning matter of History relating to the second Synod of Nice in the East and that of Francfurt in the West In the Dissuasive it was said that Eginardus Hincmarus Aventinus c. affirmed 1. That the Bishops assembled at Francfurt and condemned the Synod of Nice 2. That they commanded it should not be called a General Council 3. They published a book under the name of the
only our fault that they are not kept But how to reconcile this opinion and saying of S. Austin and some other Africans with the African Councils with S. Hierome Orosius Lactantius and with S. Austin himself and generally the whole ancient Church against the Pelagians I cannot understand but it is sufficiently confuted by all the foregoing considerations 30. S. Hierome says that the observation of the Commandments is possible to the whole Church but not to every single person but then the difficulty remains For the whole Church being a collection of single persons is not the subject of a law Nothing is universal but Names and Words a thing cannot be universal it is a contradiction to say it is To say the Church can keep it is to say that every man can keep it To say that every man of the Church cannot keep it is to say that the whole Church cannot keep it As he that says Mankind is reasonable says that every man is but he that says every man is not just says that all mankind is not just But if it contains in it another sence it is a dangerous affirmative which I shall represent in his own words Ita fit ut quod in alio aut primum aut totum est in alio ex parte versetur tamen non sit in crimine qui non habet omnia nec condemnetur ex eo quod non habet sed justificetur ex eo quod possidet I will not be so severe as S. Austin who in his nineteenth Sermon de tempore calls it blasphemy It is indeed a hard saying if he means that a man can be justified by some vertues though he retains some vices For he that sins in one is guilty of all But yet some persons shall be crowned who never converted souls and some that never redeem'd captives and millions that never sold all and gave to the poor and there are many graces of which some lives have no opportunities The state of Marriage hath some graces proper to it self and the Calling of a Merchant and the Office of a Judge and the imployment of an Advocate hath some things of vertue which others do not exercise and they also have their proper graces and in this sence it is true what S. Hierome says that he that hath not all may be justified by what he hath and not sentenced for what he hath not it not being imputed to him that he hath not that of which he hath no use Now although this be true yet it is not sufficient to explicate the Question For the Commandments are not only impossible in this sence but even in that where the scene of his duty does lie and where his graces ought to have been exercised every man is a sinner every man hath fail'd in his proper duty and calling So that now to say the Commandments are possible to the whole Church and not to every single person is to divide the duty of a Christian and to give to every one a portion of duty which must leave in every one a portion of impiety and to say that this is keeping the Commandments or a sufficient means of justification is that which S. Austin call'd blasphemy 31. But S. Hierome hath another answer Hoc nos dicimus posse hominem non peccare si velit pro tempore pro loco pro imbecillitate corporeâ quamdiu intentus est animus quamdiu corda nullo vitio laxatur in Citharâ God hath not impos'd an impossible law For there is no Commandment but a man that considers that endeavours that understands that watches that labours may do in time and place and so long as he adverts and is dipassionate so long as his instrument is in tune Which answer is like that saying of the Schools That there is no difficulty in things but every thing is easie to be understood but that we find difficulty is because of the weakness of the understanding that is things are easie to be understood if we were wise enough to understand them But because our understanding is weak therefore things are hard for to be intelligible is a relative term and it is not sence to say that a thing is in it self easie to be understood but hard to the understanding for it is as if it were said It is easie but that it is hard and that 's the thing which in this question is complain'd of on all hands For an Oak is easie to be pull'd up by the roots if a man had strength enough to do it but if this be impos'd upon a weak man or a child they have reason to complain and a Bushel or two of Wheat is no great thing to carry but it is too great for me I cannot do it So by this account of S. Hierome the Commandments are not impossible for there is not any one of them but any man can do at some time while he considers and is in perfect disposition But then we are to remember that the Commandments are always imposed and we are not always in that condition of good things to be wise and watchful well dispos'd and well resolv'd standing upon our guard and doing what we can at other times and therefore it is that the Commandments are impossible So that still the difficulty remains and the inquiry must go on How we are to understand the Divine Justice in exacting an impossible law or if he does not exact it how we understand the way of the Divine Wisdom in imposing that law which he cannot justly exact 32. To the first I answer that God doth not exact of us what is not possible to be done The highest severity of the Gospel is to love God with all our soul that is to love him as much as we can love him and that is certain we can do Every man can do as much as he can and God requires no more and even those things which we can do though he calls upon us to do the most yet he punishes us not if we do it heartily and sincerely though with less passion and exactness Now as Gods justice was secur'd in the imposition of the law of Moses because whatever severity was held over them to restrain their loosenesses yet God exacted it only by the measures of a man and healed all their breaches by the medicine of Repentance So now in the Gospel he hath done it much more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God hath taken the vail off and profess'd it openly he hath included this mercy in the very constitution of the Covenant For the Gospel is the Covenant of Repentance we shall not have leave to sin but we shall have leave to repent if we have sinned so that God hath imposed a law of perfection but he exacts it according to the possibilities of imperfect persons Omnia mandata Dei facta deputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur and then we have kept the Commandments when we
this also we exercise a holy fear and work out our salvation with fear and trembling It enlarges our care and endears our watchfulness and caution It cures or prevents our pride and bold challenges of God for rewards which we never can deserve It convinces us of the necessity of the Divine aid and makes us to relie upon Gods goodness in helping us and his mercy in pardoning us and truly without this we could neither be so sensible of our infirmities nor of the excellent gifts and mercies of God for although God does not make necessities on purpose that he may serve them or introduce sin that he might pardon it yet he loves we should depend upon him and by these rare arts of the Divine Oeconomy make us to strive to be like him and in the midst of our finite abilities have infinite desires that even so we may be disposed towards the holiness and glories of eternity 38. IV. Although God exacts not an impossible law under eternal and insufferable pains yet he imposes great holiness in unlimited and indefinite measures with a design to give excellent proportions of reward answerable to the greatness of our endeavour Hell is not the end of them that fail in the greatest measures of perfection but great degrees of Heaven shall be their portion who do all that they can always and offend in the fewest instances For as our duty is not limited so neither are the degrees of glory and if there were not this latitude of duty neither could there be any difference in glory neither could it be possible for all men to hope for Heaven but now all may The meanest of Gods servants shall go thither and yet there are greater measures for the best and most excellent services 39. Thus we may understand that the imposing of the Divine Laws in all the periods of the world was highly consistent with the Divine Justice and an excellent infinite wisdome and yet in the exacting them Mercy prevail'd because the Covenant of Works or of exact obedience was never the rule of life and death since the Saviour of the world was promised that is since the fall of Adam but all Mankind was admitted to repentance and wash'd clean in the blood of the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world and was slain from the beginning of it Repentance was the measure of our duty and the remedy for our evils and the Commandments were not impossible to him that might amend what was done amiss SECT III. How Repentance and the Precept of Perfection Evangelical can stand together 40. THAT the Gospel is a Covenant of Repentance is evident in the whole design and nature of the thing in the preparatory Sermons made by the Baptist by the Apostles of our Lord by the seventy two Disciples and the Exhortations made by S. Peter at the first opening the Commission and the secret of the Religion Which Doctrine of Repentance lest it should be thought to be a permission to sin a leave to need the remedy is charged with an addition of a strict and severe holiness the Precept of Perfection It therefore must be such a repentance as includes in it perfection and yet the perfection is such as needs repentance How these two are to stand together is the subject of the present inquiry Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect that 's the charge To be perfect as God and yet to repent as a Man seem contrary to each other They seem so only For 41. I. It does not signifie perfection of degrees in the natural sence of the word For as Philo said well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Perfections and the heights of excellencies are only proper to one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Clemens of Alexandria God alone is wise he alone is perfect All that we do is but little and that little is imperfect and that imperfection is such as could be condemned if God did not use gentleness and mercy towards us But II. Although perfection of degrees cannot be understood to be our duty in the periods and spaces of this life because we are here in the state of labour and contention of pilgrimage and progression yet even in this life we are to labour towards it and Be ye perfect viz. with the highest degrees of holiness is to be understood in a current and transient sence For this Precept thus understood hath its obligation upon our endeavour only and not upon the event When a General commands his Army to destroy the Enemy he binds them only to a prudent a possible and vigorous endeavour to do it and cannot intend the effect but by several parts answerable to the steps of the progression So is that in the Psalms Be learned ye that are Princes of the world that is learn and so by industry and attention arrive at knowledge For although though every man be a sinner yet he that does not endeavour to avoid all sin is not only guilty of the sin he commits but the negligence also which is the parent of the sin is another sin and directly criminal So it is in the degrees of perfection what we cannot attain to we must at least desire In this world we cannot arrive thither but in this life we must always be going thither It is status â—iae grace is the way to glory And as he that commands us to enter into a City from which we are hugely distant means we should pass through all the ways that lead thither so it is here The Precept must be given here and begun and set forward and it will be finished hereafter But as a man may be an adulterer or a thief with his heart and his eye as well as with his hand so it is also in good things A mans heart and eye may be in Heaven that is in the state of perfection long before he sets his feet upon the golden threshold His desires are first crown'd and fainted and then the work shall be made perfect 43. III. There is another sort of perfection which may not be improperly meant in this charge of duty and that is a perfection of state Be ye perfect that is Be ye holy for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sanctifico and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is festum or a holy day a day that hath the perfection added to it of which a day is capable a day sanctified to the Lord. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sanctifie is to make perfect Nihil enim sanctificavit lex so the Latin reads the words of S. Paul but in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The law made that perfect which it did sanctifie So that Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect is Be ye holy like him or in imitation of him And thus the word is expounded in Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That 's the perfection of
good to be like God but to be like him is to be just and holy and prudent That 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much as we can that is with a hearty righteous sincere endeavour for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or holy is used It signifies sincere true without error 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Damascius in Suidas It is not likely or true that he that is not wise in little things should be wise in great things But to live holily in the Christian sence is to live in faith and good works that 's Christian perfection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is good and holy who by faith and good works is like unto God For this perfection or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holiness is nothing else but a pursuance of that which is just and good for so said Moses concerning the man that forsook God and denied that he had made a Covenant with him Do not say in thine heart 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let it be lawful or holy or permitted to me to depart from the Lord. To this sence was that of Justin Martyr who expounds this phrase of Be ye perfect by Christianum fieri Be perfect that is Be Christians be Christs Disciples for he who came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fulfil to consummate obedience to perfect the law to obey him and be Disciples of his institution is our perfection and consummation 44. IV. This perfection of state although it does not suppose a perfection of degrees yet it can be no less than 1. A perfection of parts It must be a Religion that is not mingled with interest piety to God that is not spoiled with cruelty to our neighbours a zeal that hath in it no uncharitableness or spite that is our Religion must be intire and not defective in any constituent part So S. James uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfect and intire wanting nothing 2. To which add this also That to this perfection of state perseverance is of necessity to be added For so we are taught by the same Apostle Let patience have her perfect work that is let it bear you through all your trials lasting till all your sufferings are over For he that endures to the end shall be crowned because he only is perfect Our holiness must persevere to the end But 3. it must also be growing all the way For this word perfect is sometimes in Scripture used for degrees and as a distinction between Christians in the measures of duty S. Paul uses it to signifie well grown Christians or men in Christianity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stand perfectly and full or confidently fulfilling all the will of God for therefore we preach Christ and exhort every man and teach every man in all wisdom that we may present every man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfect in Christ Jesus that is that they should not always be as babes for whom milk and weak nutriment is to be provided nor like those silly women always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth but it is commanded us to be wise and perfect to be men in Christ so S. Paul makes the antithesis Be ye babes in malice but in your minds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be perfect that is be men wise and confident and strong and well grown Perfectly instructed that is readily prepared to every good work not always imployed in the elements and infant propositions and practices of Religion but doing noble actions well skill'd in the deepest mysteries of faith and holiness This is agreeable to that expression of S. Paul who having laid the foundation of Christianity by describing the fundamentals intending to speak of the more mysterious points of the Religion calls it a going on to perfection So that by this Precept of perfection it is intended we should do more than the lowest measure of our duties and there is no limit but even the utmost of our power all that we can is the measure of our duty I do not say all that we can naturally or possibly but all that we can morally and probably according to the measures of a man and the rate of our hindrances and infirmities 45. V. But the last sort and sence of perfection is that which our blessed Saviour intended particularly in the instance and subject matter of this Precept and that is a perfection in the kind of action that is a choice and prosecution of the most noble and excellent things in the whole Religion Three are especially instanc'd in the holy Gospel I. The first is a being ready or a making our selves ready to suffer persecution prescrib'd by our blessed Saviour to the rich young man If thou wilt be perfect sell all and give to the poor that is if thou wilt be my disciple make thy self ready and come and follow me For it was at that time necessary to all that would follow Christs person and fortune to quit all they had above their needs For they that followed him were sure of a Cross and therefore to invite them to be disciples was to engage them to the suffering persecution and this was that which our blessed Saviour calls perfection Dulce periculum est O Lenaee sequi Deum Cingentem viridi tempora pampino It is an easie thing to follow God in festivals and days of Eucharist but to serve him in hard battels to die for him is the perfection of love of faith and obedience Obedient unto death was the Character of his own perfection for Greater love than this hath no man than to lay down his life Scis quem dicam bonum perfectum absolutum Quem malum facere nulla vis nulla necessitas potest He is good absolute and perfect whom no force no necessity can make evil II. The second instance is being merciful for S. Luke recording this Precept expounds it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be ye perfect that is Be ye merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful for by mercy only we can be like him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that bears his neighbours burthen and is willing to do benefit to his inferiors and to minister to the needy of the good things which God hath given him he is as God to them that receive he is an imitator of God himself And Justin Martyr reciting this Precept of our blessed Saviour instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be ye good and bountiful us your heavenly Father is And to this purpose the story of Jesus and the young man before mentioned is interpolated in the Gospel according to the Hebrews or the Nazarens The Lord said unto him How sayest thou I have kept the Law and the Prophets when it is written in the Law Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self and behold many of thy brethren the sons of Abraham are covered in filth and
Christ and hath given to us the ministery of reconciliation * Now then we are ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs stead be ye reconciled to God * For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost for the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off and to as many as the Lord our God shall call And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law that the man which doth those things shall live by them But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise The word is nigh thee even in thy mouth and in thy heart that is the word of faith which we preach that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved Death is swallowed up in victory O death where is thy sting O grave where is thy victory The sting of death is sin and the strength of sin is the law But thanks be to God which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. My yoke is easie and my burthen is light For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh hath for sin condemned sin in the flesh that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit His Commandments are not grievous If while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life And not only so but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom we have now received the attonement I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me My grace is sufficient for thee for my strength is made perfect in weakness Ask and you shall have seek and ye shall find knock and it shall be opened unto you To him that hath shall be given and he shall have more abundantly Having therefore these promises let us cleanse our selves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord. The PRAYER I. O Eternal God Lord of Heaven and Earth Father of Men and Angels we do adore thy infinite Goodness we revere thy Justice and delight in thy Mercies by which thou hast dealt with us not with the utmost right and dominion of a Lord but with the gentleness of a Father treating us like friends who were indeed thy enemies Thou O God didst see our follies and observe our weaknesses thou knowest the aversness of our nature to good and our proneness to commit vanity and because our imperfect obedience could not bring us to perfect felicity whither thou didst design us the great God of all the world was pleased to make a new Covenant with Man and to become a debtor to his servants Blessed be God and blessed be that Mercy which hath done so great things for us O be pleased to work that in us which thou expectest from us Let us not lose our title in the Covenant of Faith and Repentance by deferring the one or dishonouring the other but let us walk worthy of our vocation according to the Law of Faith and the Mercies of God and the Covenant of our Lord Jesus II. O Blessed Jesus never suffer us to abuse thy mercies or to turn thy Grace into wantonness Let the remembrance and sense of thy glorious favours endear our services and let thy goodness lead us to Repentance and our Repentance bring forth the fruits of godliness in our whole life Imprint deeply upon our hearts the fear and terror of thy Majesty and perpetually entertain our spirits with highest apprehensions of thy loving kindness that we may fear more and love more every day more and more hating sin crucifying all its affections and desires passionately loving holy things zealously following after them prudently conducting them and indefatigably persevering in them to the end of our lives III. O Blessed and Eternal God with thy spirit inlighten our understandings in the rare mysterious Secrets of thy Law Make me to understand all the most advantageous ways of duty and kindle a flame in my Soul that no difficulty or contradiction no temptation within or persecution without may ever extinguish Give me a mighty grace that I may design to please thee with my best and all my services to follow the best examples to do the noblest Charities to pursue all Perfection ever pressing forward to the mark of the high calling in Christ Jesus Let us rather choose to die than to sin against our Consciences Let us also watch that we may omit nothing of our duty nor pretermit any opportunity by which thou canst be glorified or any Christian instructed comforted or assisted not resting in the strictest measures of Command but passing forward to great and prudent significations of love doing heroick actions some things by which thou mayest be greatly pleased that thou mayest take delight to pardon to sanctifie and to preserve thy servants for ever Amen CHAP. II. Of the Nature and Definition of Repentance And what parts of duty are signified by it in Holy Scriptures SECT I. THE Greeks use two words to express this duty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 post factum angi cruciari to be afflicted in mind to be troubled for our former folly it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Phavorinus a being displeased for what we have done and it is generally used for all sorts of Repentance but more properly to signifie either the beginnings of a good or the whole state of an effective Repentance In the first sence we find it in S. Mathew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ye seeing did not repent that ye might believe him Of the second sence we have example in Judas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he repented too but the end of it was he died with anguish and despair and of Esau it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he found no place for an effective repentance but yet he repented too for he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he fain would have had it otherwise and he sought it with tears which two do fully express all the meaning of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is distinguished from the better and effective Repentance There is in this Repentance a sorrow for what is done a
disliking of the thing with its consequents and effect and so far also it is a change of mind But it goes no further than so far to change the mind that it brings trouble and sorrow and such things which are the natural events of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas It is an affection incident to man not to God who cannot repent where although by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means an Accident or property of Man that is a quality in the general sence yet that it is properly a passion in the special sence was the sence of all men as Tertullian observes saying that the Heathens know Repentance to be passionem animi quandam the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Suidas a passion quae veniat de offensâ sententiae prioris coming from our being offended or troubled at our former course But Tertullian uses the Latine word of which I shall give account in the following periods 2. But when there was a difference made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the better word which does not properly signifie the sorrow for having done amiss but something that is noble◠than it but brought in at the gate of sorrow For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a godly sorrow that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the first beginning of Repentance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worketh this better Repentance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a repentance not to be repented of not to be sorrowed for a repentance that is unto salvation Sorrow may go before this but dwells not with it according to that of S. Chrysostome Medicinae hic locus non judicii non poenas sed peccatorum remissionem poenitentia tribuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word Repentance brings not pains but pardon with it for this is the place of medicine and remedy not of judgment or condemnation meaning that this Repentance is wholly salutary as tending to reformation and amendment But Tertullian made the observation more express In Graeco sono poenitentiae nomen non ex delicti confessione sed ex animi demutatione compositum est To repent among the Greeks signifies not a confession of our fault but the change of mind He speaks of the Grammaticall sence of the word for in the whole use of it it is otherwise 3. For however the Grammarians may distinguish them yet the words are used promiscuously for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes used in the bad sence and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the better repentance not often but sometimes it does The son that told his Father he would not work in his Vineyard afterwards was sorry for refusing and he went to work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the some Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye seeing were not troubled and sorrowful that ye might believe that is amend your fault 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in both places used for a salutary repentance And on the other side 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to signifie in the evil sence a state of misery without remedy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the Septuagint read that of Solomon The wicked man cometh to repentance that is to misery and sorrow So that there is nothing of usefulness which can be drawn from the Grammatical sence of these words They both signifie a change of mind and they both signifie a sorrow and they both are used for the same thing and indeed that will be the best use of them No man can be truly said to repent but he who being sorrowful for doing evil betakes himself to wiser courses So Phavorinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Repentance is a sense and compunction of the soul for those things which were done foolishly Sum Dea quae facti non factique exigo poenas Nempe ut poeniteat sic Metanoea vocor Repentance does exact punishment for evils done and good undone but besides this it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a conversion to that which is better So Aretas defines it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same with the former an eschewing evil and doing good 4. And thus the Holy Scriptures understand this word and this duty It is a whole change of state and life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a turning from sin and it is emphatically called by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a repentance from dead works that is a forsaking them with sorrow that ever we committed them And it is also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a conversion to God from darkness to light from the power of Satan unto God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a returning to sobriety the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Justin Martyr all signifying a departing from our follies and a changing to a better life And though sometimes to Repent is in Scripture taken for sorrow only or a being troubled that the fact is done yet it is called Repentance no otherwise than as alms is called Charity that is it is an effect of it a part or action or adjunct of the duty and state of Repentance which ought to be observed lest as it is too commonly one act be mistaken for the whole state and we account our selves perfect penitents if we have only wept a penitential shower which is also to be observed in the definitions which the Doctors give of it 5. Tertullian calls it a passion of the mind or grief for the offence of our former acts S. Austin calls it a revenge always punishing in it self that which it grieves to have committed These do only describe that part of repentance which is sometimes signified by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is nothing else but a godly sorrow the porch or beginnings of Repentance On the other side Lactantius describing Repentance gives only the Grammatical sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Agere autem poenitentiam nihil aliud est quà m profiteri affirmare se ulteriùs non peccaturum To repent saith he is nothing else but a profession and affirmation that he will sin no more which descriptions of Repentance are just as if we should say A man is a creature that speaks or laughs or that can learn to read These are effects of his nature but not the ingredients of a proper definition Sorrow and Revenge and holy purposes and protestations are but single acts of a returning and penitent man whereas Repentance is a whole state of a new life an intire change of the sinner with all its appendages and instruments of ministery 6. As the Greeks have so have the Latins also two words to signifie this duty Poenitentia and Resipiscentia and these have almost the same fate and the same usages with the other Poenitentia is used by the old Latin translation and is most tenaciously retained by all them who make the very life of Repentance to run into corporal austerities like the juice of luxuriant trees into irregular
they are transgressions of the Divine Law So S. Basil argues Nullum peccatum contemnendum ut parvum quando D. Paulus de omni peccato generatim pronunciaverat stimulum mortis esse peccatum The sting of death is sin that is death is the evil consequent of sin and comes in the tail of it of every sin and therefore no sin must be despised as if it were little Now if every little sin hath this sting also as it is on all hands agreed that it hath it follows that every little transgression is perfectly and intirely against a Commandment And indeed it is not sence to say any thing can in any sence be a sin and that it should not in the same sence be against a Commandment For although the particular instance be not named in the Law yet every instance of that matter must be meant It was an extreme folly in Bellarmine to affirm Peccatum veniale ex parvitate materiae est quidem perfectè voluntarium sed non perfectè contra legem Lex enim non prohibet furtum uniu◠oboli in specie sed prohibet furtum in genere That a sin that is venial by the smalness of the matter is not perfectly against the Law because the Law forbids theft indeed in the general but does not in particular forbid the stealing of a half-peny for upon the same reason it is not perfectly against the Law to steal three pound nineteen shillings three pence because the Law in general only forbids theft but does not in particular forbid the stealing of that summ * But what is besides the Law and not against it cannot be a sin and therefore to fancy any sin to be only besides the Law is a contradiction so to walk to ride to eat flesh or herbs to wear a long or a short garment are said to be besides the Law but therefore they are permitted and indifferent Indifferent I say in respect of that Law which relates to that particular matter and indifferent in all sences unless there be some collateral Law which may prohibit it indirectly So for a Judge to be a Coachman for a Priest to be a Fidler or Inne-keeper are not directly unlawful but indirectly they are as being against decency and publick honesty or reputation or being inconvenient in order to that end whither their calling is design'd To this sence are those words of S. Paul All things are lawful for me but all things are not expedient That is some things which directly are lawful by an indirect obligation may become unfit to be done but otherwise Licitum est quod nullâ lege prohibetur saith the Law If no Law forbids it then it is lawful and to abstain from what is lawful though it may have a worthiness in it more than ordinary yet to use our liberty is at no hand a sin The issue then is this either we are forbidden to do a venial sin or we are not If we are not forbidden then it is as lawful to do a venial sin as to marry or eat flesh If we are forbidden then every such action is directly against Gods Law and consequently finable at the will of the supreme Judge and if he please punishable with a supreme anger And to this purpose there is an excellent observation in S. Austin Peccatum delictum si nihil differrent inter se si unius rei duo nomina essent non curaret Scriptura tam diligentèr unum esse utriusque sacrificium There are several names in Scripture to signifie our wandrings and to represent the several degrees of sin but carefully it is provided for that they should be expiated with the same sacrifice which proves that certainly they are prevarications of the same Law offences of the same God provocations of the same anger and heirs of the same death and even for small offences a Sacrifice was appointed lest men should neglect what they think God regarded not 24. III. Every sin even the smallest is against Charity which is the end of the Commandment For every sin or evil of transgression is far worse than all the evils of punishment with which mankind is afflicted in this world and it is a less evil that all mankind should be destroyed than that God should be displeased in the least instance that is imaginable Now if we esteem the loss of our life or our estate the wounding our head or the extinction of an eye to be great evils to us and him that does any thing of this to us to be our enemy or to be injurious we are to remember that God hates every sin worse than we can hate pain or beggery And if a nice and a tender conscience the spirit of every excellent person does extremely hate all that can provoke God to anger or to jealousie it must be certain that God hates every such thing with an hatred infinitely greater so great that no understanding can perceive the vastness of it and immensity For by how much every one is better by so much the more he hates every sin and the soul of a righteous man is vexed and afflicted with the inrodes of his unavoidable calamities the armies of Egypt the Lice and Flies his insinuating creeping infirmities Now if it be holiness in him to hate these little sins it is an imitation of God for what is in us by derivation is in God essentially therefore that which angers a good man and ought so to do displeases God and consequently is against charity or the love of God For it is but a vain dream to imagine that because just men such who are in the state of grace and of the love of God do commit smaller offences therefore they are not against the love of God for every degree of cold does abate something of the heat in any hot body but yet because it cannot destroy it all cold and heat may be consistent in the same subject but no man can therefore say they are not contraries and would not destroy each other if they were not hindred by something else and so would the smallest offences also destroy the life of grace if they were not destroyed themselves But of this afterwards For the present let it be considered how it can possibly consist with our love to God with that duty that commands us to love him with all our heart with all our strength with all our might and with all our soul how I say it can be consistent with a love so extended so intended to entertain any thing that he hates so essentially To these particulars I add this one consideration That since there is in the world a fierce opinion that some sins are so slight and little that they do not destroy our relation to God and cannot break the sacred tie of friendship he who upon the inference and presumption of that opinion shall chuse to commit such small sins which he thinks to be the All that is
infinite repetition of the acts of all those are as Davids expression is without hyperbole more than the hairs upon our head they are like the number of the sands upon the Sea shore for multitude SECT VI. What repentance is necessary for the smaller or more Venial sins 56. I. UPON supposition of the premises since these smaller sins are of the same nature and the same guilt and the same enmity against God and consign'd to the same evil portion that other sins are they are to be wash'd off with the same repentance also as others Christs blood is the lavatory and Faith and Repentance are the two hands that wash our souls white from the greatest and the least stains and since they are by the impenitent to be paid for in the same fearful prisons of darkness by the same remedies and instruments the intolerable sentence can only be prevented The same ingredients but a less quantity possibly may make the medicine Caesarius Bishop of Arles who spake many excellent things in this article says that for these smaller sins a private repentance is proportionable Si levia fortasse sunt delicta v. g. si homo vel in sermone vel in aliquâ reprehensibili voluntate si in oculo peccavit aut corde verborum cogitationum maculae quotidianâ oratione curandae privatâ compunctione terendae sunt The sins of the eye and the sins of the heart and the offences of the tongue are to be cured by secret contrition and compunction and a daily prayer But S. Cyprian commends many whose conscience being of a tender complexion they would even for the thoughts of their heart do publick penance His words are these multos timoratae conscientiae quamvis nullo sacrificii aut libelli facinore constricti essent quoniam tamen de hoc vel cogitaverunt hoc ipsum apud Sacerdotes Dei dolenter simplicitèr confitentes exomologesin conscientiae fecisse animi sui pondus exposuisse salutarem medelam parvis licet modicis vulneribus exquirentes Because they had but thought of complying with idolaters they sadly and ingenuously came to the Ministers of holy things Gods Priests confessing the secret turpitude of their conscience laying aside the weight that pressed their spirit and seeking remedy even for their smallest wounds And indeed we find that among the Ancients there was no other difference in assignation of repentance to the several degrees of sin but only by publick and private Capital sins they would have submitted to publick judgment but the lesser evils to be mourn'd for in private of this I shall give account in the Chapter of Ecclesiastical repentance In the mean time their general rule was That because the lesser sins came in by a daily incursion therefore they were to be cut off by a daily repentance which because it was daily could not be so intense and signally punitive as the sharper repentances for the seldome returning sins yet as the sins were daily but of less malice so their repentance must be daily but of less affliction Medicamento quotidianae poenitentiae dissecentur That was S. Austins rule Those evils that happen every day must be cried out against every day 57. II. Every action of repentance every good work done for the love of God and in the state of grace and design'd and particularly applied to the intercision of the smallest unavoidable sins is through the efficacy of Christs death and in the vertue of repentance operative towards the expiation or pardon of them For a man cannot do all the particulars of repentance for every sin but out of the general hatred of sin picks out some special instances and apportions them to his special sins as to acts of uncleanness he opposes acts of severity to intemperance he opposes fasting But then as he rests not here but goes on to the consummation of Repentance in his whole life so it must be in the more venial sins A less instance of express anger is graciously accepted if it be done in the state of grace and in the vertue of Repentance but then the pardon is to be compleated in the pursuance and integrity of that grace in the Summes total For no man can say that so much sorrow or such a degree of Repentance is enough to any sin he hath done and yet a man cannot apportion to every sin large portions of special sorrow it must therefore be done all his life time and the little portions must be made up by the whole grace and state of Repentance One instance is enough particularly to express the anger or to apply the grace of Repentance to any single sin which is not among the Capitals but no one instance is enough to extinguish it For sin is not pardon'd in an instant as I shall afterwards discourse neither is the remedy of a natural and a just proportion to the sin Therefore when many of the ancient Doctors apply to venial sins special remedies by way of expiation or deprecation such as are beating the breast saying the Lords Prayer Alms communicating confessing and some others the doctrine of such remedies is not true if it be understood that those particulars are just physically or meritoriously proportion'd to the sin No one of these alone is a cure or expiation of the past sin but every one of these in the vertue of Repentance is effective to its part of the work that is he that repents and forsakes them as he can shall be accepted though the expression of his Repentance be applied to his fault but in one or more of these single instances because all good works done in the Faith of Christ have an efficacy towards the extinction of those sins which cannot be avoided by any moral diligence there is no other thing on our parts which can be done and if that which is unavoidable were also irremediable our condition would be intolerable and desperate To the sence of this advice we have the words of S. Gregory Si quis ergo peccata sua tecta esse desiderat Deo ea per vocem confessionis ostendat c. If any man desires to have his sins covered let him first open them to God in confession but there are some sins which so long as we live in this world can hardly or indeed not at all be wholly avoided by perfect men For holy men have something in this life which they ought to cover for it is altogether impossible that they should never sin in word or thought Therefore the men of God do study to cover the faults of their eyes or tongue with good deeds they study to over-power the number of their idle words with the weight of good works But how can it be that the faults of good men should be covered when all things are naked to the eyes of God but only because that which is covered is put under something is brought over it Our sins are covered when we bring
first part of Conversion or Repentance is a quitting of all sinful habits and abstaining from all criminal actions whatsoever Virtus est vitium fugere sapientia prima Stultitiâ caruisse For unless the Spirit of God rule in our hearts we are none of Christs but he rules not where the works of the flesh are frequently or maliciously or voluntarily entertained All the works of the flesh and whatsoever leads to them all that is contrary to the Spirit and does either grieve or extinguish him must be rescinded and utterly taken away Concerning which it is necessary that I set down the Catalogues which by Christ and his Apostles are left us as lights and watch-towers to point out the rocks and quicksands where our danger is and this I shall the rather do not only because they comprehend many evils which are not observed or feared some which are commended and many that are excused but also because although they are all mark'd with the same black character of death yet there is some difference in the execution of the sentence and in the degrees of their condemnation and of the consequent Repentance Evil thoughts or discoursings 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Evil reasonings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Hesychius that is prating importune pratling and looseness of tongue such as is usual with bold boys and young men prating much and to no purpose But our Bibles read it Evil thoughts or surmisings for in Scripture it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Suidas observes concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to think long and carefully to dwell in meditation upon a thing to which when our blessed Saviour adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 evil he notes and reproves such kind of morose thinkings and fancying of evil things and it is not unlikely that he means thoughts of uncleanness or lustful fancies For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Hesychius it signifies such words as are prologues to wantonness so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aristophanes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that here are forbidden all wanton words and all morose delighting in venereous thoughts all rollings and tossing such things in our mind For even these defile the soul. Verborum obscoenitas si turpitudini rerum adhibeatur ludus ne libero quidem homine dignus est said Cicero Obscene words are a mockery not worthy of an ingenuous person This is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that foolish talking and jesting which S. Paul joyns to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that filthiness of communication which men make a jest of but is indeed the basest in the world the sign of a vile dishonest mind and it particularly noted the talk of Mimicks and Parasites Buffoons and Players whose trade was to make sport 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they did use to do it with nastiness and filthy talkings as is to be seen in Aristophanes and is rarely described and severely reproved in S. Chrysostom in his sixth Homily upon S. Matthew For per verba dediscitur rerum pudor which S. Paul also affirms in the words of Menander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Evil words corrupt good manners and evil thoughts being the fountain of evil words lie under the same prohibition Under this head is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a talkative rash person ready to speak slow to hear against S. James his rule Inventers of Evil things 3. Contrivers of all such artifices as minister to vice Curious inventions for cruelty for gluttony for lust witty methods of drinking wanton pictures and the like which for the likeness of the matter I have subjoyn'd next to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the evil thinkings or surmises reproved by our blessed Saviour as these are expresly by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 COVETOVSNESS or 4. Inordinate unreasonable desires For the word does not only signifie the designing and contrivances of unjust ways of purchasing which is not often separated from covetous desires but the very studium habendi the thirst or greediness secret and impatient desires of having abundance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hurt of immoderate lusting or desire and is sometimes applied to the matter of uncleanness but in this Catalogue I wholly separate it from this because this is comprised under other words Neither will it be hard to discern and to reprove this sin of desires in them that are guilty of it though they will not think or confess what is and what is not abundance For there is not easily to be found a greater testimony of covetousness than the error concerning the measure of our possessions He that is not easie to call that abundance which by good and severe men is thought so desires more than he should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when any thing is over and above the needs of our life that is too much and to desire that is covetousness saith S. Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take heed and keep your selves from covetousness for our life consisteth not in abundance intimating that to desire more than our life needs is to desire abundance and that is covetousness and that is the root of all evil that is all sins and all mischiefs can come from hence Divitis hoc vitium est auri nec bella fuere Faginus adstabat cum scyphus ante dapes There were no wars in those days when men did drink in a treen cup. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 WICKEDNESS 5. This is the same that the Latines call Malitia a scurvy base disposition aptness to do shrewd turns to delight in mischiefs and tragedies a loving to trouble our neighbour and to do him ill offices crosseness perverseness and peevishness of action in our entercourse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas Facessere negotium alicui to do a man an evil office or to put him to trouble And to this is reducible that which S. Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Malignity a baseness of nature by which we take things by the wrong handle and expounding things always in the worst sence Vitiositas is the Latin word for it and it seems to be worse than the former by being a more general principle of mischief Malitia certi cujusdam vitii est vitiositas omnium said Cicero This is in a mans nature an universal depravation of his spirit that is in manners and is sooner cured than this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CRAFTINESS 6. That is a wiliness and aptness to deceive a studying by some underhand trick to over-reach our brother like that of Corax his Scholar he cousen'd his Master with a trick of his own art 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A crafty Crow laid a crafty egge By which is not signified that natural or acquired sagacity by which men can contrive wittily or be too hard for their brother if they should
moved God to smite would also move him to forbear which were a strange Oeconomy The words therefore are not a reason of his forbearing but an aggravation of his kindness as if he had said Though man be continually evil yet I will not for all that any more drown the world for mans being so evil and so the Hebrews note that the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies although 49. But the great out-cry in this Question is upon confidence of the words of David Behold I was shapen in wickedness and in sin hath my mother conceived me To which I answer that the words are an Hebraism and signifie nothing but an aggrandation of his sinfulness and are intended for an high expression meaning that I am wholly and intirely wicked For the verification of which exposition there are divers parallel places in the holy Scriptures Thou wert my hope when I hanged yet upon my mothers breasts and The ungodly are froward even from their mothers womb as soon as they be born they go astray and speak lies which because it cannot be true in the letter must be an idiotism or propriety of phrase apt to explicate the other and signifying only a ready a prompt a great and universal wickedness The like to this is that saying of the Pharisees Thou wert altogether born in sin and dost thou teach us which phrase and manner of speaking being plainly a reproach of the poor blind man and a disparagement of him did mean only to call him a very wicked person but not that he had derived his sin originally and from his birth for that had been their own case as much as his and therefore S. Chrysostome explaining this phrase says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is as if they should say Thou hast been a sinner all thy life time To the same sence are those words of Job I have guided her the widow from my mothers womb And in this expression and severity of hyperbole it is that God aggravated the sins of his people Thou wast called a transgressor from the womb And this way of expressing a great state of misery we find us'd among the Heathen Writers for so Seneca brings in Oedipus complaining Infanti quoque decreta mors est Fata quis tam tristia sortitus unquam Videram nondum diem jam tenebar Mors me antecessit aliquis intra viscera Materna lethum praecocis fati tulit Sed numquid peccavit Something like S. Bernards Damnatus antequam natus I was condemn'd before I was born dead before I was alive and death seised upon me in my mothers womb Somebody brought in a hasty and a too forward death but did he sin also An expression not unlike to this we have in Lucian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pardon me that I was not born wicked or born to be wicked 2. If David had meant it literally it had not signified that himself was born in original sin but that his father and mother sinn'd when they begat him which the eldest son that he begat of Bathsheba for ought I know might have said truer than he in this sence And this is the exposition of Clemens Alexandrinus save only that by my mother he understands Eva 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though he was conceived in sin yet he was not in the sin peccatrix concepit sed non peccatorem she sinn'd in the conception not David And in the following words he speaks home to the main article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let them tell us where an infant did fornicate or how he who had done nothing could fall under the curse of Adam meaning so as to deserve the same evil that he did 3. If it did relate to his own person he might mean that he was begotten with that sanguine disposition and libidinous temper that was the original of his vile adultery and then though David said this truly of himself yet it is not true of all not of those whose temper is phlegmatick and unactive 4. If David had meant this of himself and that in regard of original sin this had been so far from being a penitential expression or a confessing of his sin that it had been a plain accusation of God and an excusing of himself As if he had said O Lord I confess I have sinn'd in this horrible murder and adultery but thou O God knowest how it comes to pass even by that fatal punishment which thou didst for the sin of Adam inflict on me and all mankind above 3000. years before I was born thereby making me to fall into so horrible corruption of nature that unless thou didst irresistibly force me from it I cannot abstain from any sin being most naturally inclin'd to all In this sinfulness hath my mother conceived me and that hath produc'd in me this sad effect Who would suppose David to make such a confession or in his sorrow to hope for pardon for upbraiding not his own folly but the decrees of God 5. But that David thought nothing of this or any thing like it we may understand by the preceding words which are as a preface to these in the objection Against thee only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight that thou mightest be justified in thy saying and clear when thou art judged He that thus acquits God cannot easily be supposed in the very next breath so fiercely to accuse him 6. To which also adde the following words which are a sufficient reproof of all strange sences in the other In sin hath my mother conceived me But loe thou requirest truth in the inward parts as if he had said Though I am so wicked yet thy laws are good and I therefore so much the worse because I am contrary to thy laws They require truth and sincerity in the soul but I am false and perfidious But if this had been natural for him so to be and unavoidable God who knew it perfectly well would have expected nothing else of him For he will not require of a stone to speak nor of fire to be cold unless himself be pleased to work a miracle to have them so 50. But S. Paul affirms that by nature we were the children of wrath True we were so when we were dead in sins and before we were quickned by the Spirit of life and grace We were so now we are not We were so by our own unworthiness and filthy conversation now we being regenerated by the Spirit of holiness we are alive unto God and no longer heirs of wrath This therefore as appears by the discourse of S. Paul relates not to our Original sin but to the Actual and of this sence of the word Nature in the matter of sinning we have Justin Martyr or whoever is the Author of the Questions and Answers ad Orthodoxos to be witness For answering those words of Scripture There is not any one clean who is born of a woman
and there is none begotten who hath not committed sin He says their meaning cannot extend to Christ for he was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 born to sin but he is natura ad peccandum natus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by nature born to sin who by the choice of his own will is author to himself to do what he list whether it be good or evil The following words are eaten out by time but upon this ground whatever he said of Infants must needs have been to better purposes than is usually spoken of in this Article 2. Heirs of wrath signifies persons liable to punishment heirs of death It is an usual expression among the Hebrews So sons of death in the holy Scriptures are those that deserve death or are condemned to die Thus Judas Iscariot is called The son of perdition and so is that saying of David to Nathan The man that hath done this shall surely die In the Hebrew it is He is the son of death And so were those Ephesians children or sons of wrath before their conversion that is they had deserv'd death 3. By nature is here most likely to be meant that which Galen calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an acquisite nature that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 customs and evil habits And so Suidas expounds the word in this very place not only upon the account of Grammar and the use of the word in the best Authors but also upon an excellent reason His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Apostle says we were by nature children of wrath he means not that which is the usual signification of nature for then it were not their fault but the fault of him that made them such but it means an abiding and vile habit a wicked and a lasting custom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle Custom is like Nature For often and always are not far asunder Nature is always Custom is almost always To the same sence are those words of Porphyry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The ancients who lived likest to God and were by nature the best living the best life were a golden generation 4. By nature means not by birth and natural extraction or any original derivation from Adam in this place for of this these Ephesians were no more guilty than every one else and no more before their conversion than after but by nature signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the Greek Scholiast renders it really beyond opinion plenè omnino intirely or wholly so the Syriack and so S. Hierome affirms that the Ancients did expound it and it is agreeable to the usage of the same phrase Gal. 4.8 Ye did service to them which by nature are no Gods that is which really are none And as these Ephesians were before their conversion so were the Israelites in the days of their rebellion a wicked stubborn people insomuch that they are by the Prophet called children of transgression a seed of falsehood But these and the like places have no force at all but what they borrow from the ignorance of that sence and acceptation of the word in those languages which ought to be the measure of them 51. But it is hard upon such mean accounts to reckon all children to be born enemies of God that is bastards and not sons heirs of Hell and damnation full of sin and vile corruption when the holy Scriptures propound children as imitable for their pretty innocence and sweetness and declare them rather heirs of Heaven than Hell In malice be children and unless we become like to children we shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and their Angels behold the face of their Father which is in Heaven Heaven is theirs God is their Father Angels are appropriated to them they are free from malice and imitable by men These are better words than are usually given them and signifie that they are beloved of God not hated design'd for Heaven and born to it though brought thither by Christ and by the Spirit of Christ not born for Hell that was prepared for the Devil and his Angels not for innocent babes This does not call them naturally wicked but rather naturally innocent and is a better account than is commonly given them by imputation of Adams sin 52. But not concerning children but of himself S. Paul complains that his nature and his principles of action and choice are corrupted There is a law in my members bringing me into captivity to the law of sin and many other words to the same purpose all which indeed have been strangely mistaken to very ill purposes so that the whole Chapter so as is commonly expounded is nothing but a temptation to evil life and a patron of impiety Concerning which I have in the next Chapter given account and freed it from the common abuse But if this were to be understood in the sence which I there reprove yet it is to be observed in order to the present Question that S. Paul does not say This law in our members comes by nature or is derived from Adam A man may bring a law upon himself by vicious custom and that may be as prevalent as Nature and more because more men have by Philosophy and illuminated Reason cured the disposition of their nature than have cured their vicious habits * Add to this that S. Paul puts this uneasiness and this carnal law in his members wholly upon the account of being under the law and of his not being under Christ not upon the account of Adams prevarication as is plain in the analogy of the whole Chapter 53. As easie also it is to understand these words of S. Paul without prejudice to this Question The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God neither indeed can he know them meaning as is supposed that there is in our natures an ignorance and averseness from spiritual things that is a contrariety to God But it is observable that the word which the Apostle uses is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not properly rendred Natural but Animal and it certainly means a man that is guided only by natural Reason without the revelations of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Suidas An animal man that is a Philosopher or a rational man such as were the Greek and Roman Philosophers upon the stock and account of the learning of all their Schools could never discern the excellencies of the Gospel mysteries as of God incarnate Christ dying Resurrection of the body and the like For this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Animal and another word used often by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Carnal are opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiritual and are states of evil or of imperfection in which while a man remains he cannot do the work of God For animality which is a relying upon natural principles without revelation is a state privatively oppos'd to the
say this may be a final event I find no warrant for that and think it only to be an intermedial event that is though Adam's sin left us there yet God did not leave us there but instantly gave us Christ as a remedy and now what in particular shall be the state of Unbaptized infants so dying I do not profess to know or teach because God hath kept it as a secret I only know that he is a gracious Father and from his goodness nothing but goodness is to be expected and that is since neither Scripture nor any Father till about Saint Augustine's time did teach the poor Babes could die not onely once for Adam's sin but twice and for ever I can never think that I do my duty to GOD if I think or speak any thing of him that seems so unjust or so much against his goodness And therefore although by Baptism or by the ordinary Ministery Infants are new born and rescued from the state of Adam's account which metonymically may be called a remitting of Original sin that is a receiving them from the punishment of Adam's sin or the state of evil whither in him they are devolved yet Baptism does but consider that grace which God gives in Jesus Christ and he gives it more ways than one to them that desire Baptism to them that die for Christianity and the Church even in Origen's time and before that did account the Babes that died in Bethlehem by the Sword of Herod to be Saints and I do not doubt but he gives it many ways that we know not of And therefore S. Bernard and many others do suppose that the want of Baptism is supplied by the Baptism of the H. Ghost To which purpose the 87 Epistle of S. Bernard is worth the reading But this I add that those who affirmed that Infants without actual Baptism could not be saved affirmed the same also of them if they wanted the H. Eucharist as is to be seen in Paulinus epigr. 6. The writer of Hypognosticon lib. 5. S. Augustin Hom. 10. Serm. 8. de verbis Apostoli 107 Epistle to Vitalis And since no Church did ever enjoyn to any Catechumen any Penance or Repentance for Original sin it seems horrible and unreasonable that any man can be damned for that for which no man is bound to repent SECT V. The Doctrine of Antiquity in this whole matter The summe of all is this 18. I. ORiginal Sin is Adam's sin imputed to us to many evil effects II. It brings death and the evils of this life III. Our evils and necessity being brought upon us bring in a flood of passions which are hard to be bridled or mortified IV. It hath left us in pure naturals disrobed of such aids extraordinary as Adam had V. It deprives us of all title to Heaven or supernatural happiness that is it neither hath in it strength to live a spiritual life nor title to a heavenly VI. It leaves in us our natural concupiscence and makes it much worse Thus far I admit and explicate this Article But all that I desire of the usual Propositions which are variously taught now adays is this I. Original sin is not an inherent evil not a sin properly but metonymically that is it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many a stain but no sin II. It does not destroy our liberty which we had naturally III. It does not introduce a natural necessity of sinning IV. It does not damn any Infant to the Eternal Pains of Hell And now how consonant my explication of the Article is to the first and best antiquity besides the testimonies I have already brought here concerning some parts of it will appear by the following authorities speaking to the other parts of it and to the whole Question S. Ignatius the Martyr in his Epistle to the Magnesians hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a man be a pious man He is a man of God if he be impious he is of the Devil not made so by nature but by his own choice and sentence by which words he excludes nature and affirms our natural liberty to be the cause of our good or evil that is we are in fault but not Adam so as we are And it is remarkable that Ignatius hath said nothing to the contrary of this or to infirm the force of these words and they who would fain have alledged him to contrary purposes cite him calling Adam's sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the old iniquity which appellative is proper enough but of no efficacy in this question Dionysius the Areopagite if he be the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy does very well explicate this Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When in the beginning humane nature foolishly fell from the state of good things which God gave it it was then entred into a life of passions and the end of the corruption of Death This sentence of his differs not from that of S. Chrysostome before alledged for when man grew miserable by Adam's fall and was disrobed of his aids he grew passionate and peevish and tempted and sick and died This is all his account of Adam's story and it is a very true one But the writer was of a later date not much before S. Austin's time as it is supposed but a learned and a Catholick believer 19. Concerning Justin Martyr I have already given this account that he did not think the liberty of choice impaired by Adam's sin but in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew he gives no account of Original sin but this that Christ was not crucified or born as if himself did need it but for the sake of Mankind which by Adam fell into death and the deception of the Serpent besides all that which men commit wickedly upon their own stock of impiety So that the effect of Adam's sin was death and being abused by the Devil for this very reason to rescue us from the effects of this deception and death and to redeem us from our impiety Christ was born and died But all this meddles not with any thing of the present Questions for to this all interests excepting the Pelagians and Socinians will subscribe It is material which is spoken by him or some under his name in the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is no man who is by nature born to sin and do wickedly but hath sinned and done wickedly But he is by nature born to sin who by the choice of his free-will is author to himself of doing what he will whether it be good or bad But an infant as being not indued with any such power it appears sufficiently that he is not by nature born to sin These words when they had been handled as men pleased and turned to such sences as they thought they could escape by at last they appear to be the words of one who understood nothing
eo usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiù recenseatur Peccatrix a. quia immunda recipiens ignominiam suam ex carnis societate And this which he here calls a reproach he otherwhere calls an imperfection or a shame saying by Sathan man at first was circumvented and therefore given up unto Death and from thence all the kind was from his seed infected he made a traduction of his sentence or damnation to wit unto death which was his condemnation and therefore speaking of the woman he says the sentence remaining upon her in this life it is necessary that the guilt also should remain which words are rough and hard to be understood because after Baptism the guilt does not remain but by the following words we may guess that he means that women still are that which Eve was even snares to men gates for the Devil to enter and that they as Eve did dare and can prevail with men when the Devil by any other means cannot I know nothing else that he says of this Article save only that according to the constant sence of antiquity he affirms that the natural faculties of the Soul were not impaired Omnia naturalia animae ut substantiva ejus ipsi inesse cum ipsâ procedere atque proficere And again Hominis anima velut surculus quidam ex Matrice Adam in propaginem deducta genitalibus foeminae foveis commendata cum omni sua paratura pullulabiâ— tam in intellectu quam in sensu The soul like a sprig from Adam derived into his off-spring and put into the bed of its production shall with all its appendages spring or increase both in sence and understanding And that there is liberty of choice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which supposes liberty he proved against Marcion and Hermogenes as himself affirms in the 21 Chap. of the same Book S. Cyprian proving the effect of Baptism upon all and consequently the usefulness to Infants argues thus If pardon of sins is given to the greatest sinners and them that before sinned much against God and afterwards believed and none is forbidden to come to baptism and grace how much more must not an infant be forbidden qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contraxit qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso facilius accedit quod illi remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata Who being new born hath not sinned at all but only being born carnally of Adam he hath in his first birth contracted the contagion of the old death which comes to the remission of sin the more easily because not his own sins but the sins of another are forgiven him In which it is plainly affirmed that the Infant is innocent that he hath not sinned himself that there is in him no sin inherent that Adam's sin therefore only is imputed that all the effect of it upon him is the contagion of death that is mortality and its affections and according as the sins are so is the remission they are the infants improperly and metonymically therefore so is the remission But Arnobius speaks yet more plainly Omne peccatum corde concipitur â—re consummatur Hic autem qui nascitur sententiam Adae habet Peccatum verò suum non habet He that is born of Adam hath the sentence of Adam upon him but not the sin that is he hath no sin inherent but the punishment inflicted by occasion of it The author of the short commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul attributed to S. Ambrose speaks so much that some have used the authority of this writer to prove that there is no Original sin as Sixtus Senensis relates His words are these Mors autem dissolutio corporis est cum anima à corpore separatur est alia mors que secunda dicitur in gehenna quam non peccato Adae patimur sed ejus occasione propriâ—â— peccatis acquiritur Death is the dissolution of the Body when the Soul is separated from it There is also another death in Hell which is called the second death which we suffer not from Adam's sin but by occasion of it it is acquired by our own sins These words need no explication for when he had in the precedent words affirmed that we all sinned in the Mass of Adam this following discourse states the Question right and declares that though Adam's sin be imputed to us to certain purposes yet no man can be damned to the second Death for it it is a testimony so plain for the main part of my affirmation in this Article that as there is not any thing against it within the first 400 years so he could not be accounted a Catholick author if the contrary had been the sence or the prevailing Opinion of the Church 22. To these I shall add the clearest testimonies of S. Chrysostome It seems to have in it no small Question that it is said that by the disobedience of one many become sinners For sinning and being made mortal it is not unlikely that they which spring from him should be so too But that another should be made a sinner by his disobedience what agreement or consequent I beseech you can it have what therefore doth this word Sinner in this place signifie It seems to me to signifie the same that lyable to punishment guilty of Death does signifie because Adam dying all are made mortal by him And again Thou sayest what shall I do by him that is by Adam I perish No not for him For hast thou remained without sin For though thou hast not committed the same sin yet another thou hast And in the 29 Homily upon the same Epistle he argues thus What therefore tell me are all dead in Adam by the death of sin How then was Noah a just man in his generation How was Abraham and Job If this be to be understood of the body the sentence will be certain but if it be understood of justice and sin it will not But to sum up all he answers the great Argument used by S. Austin to prove infants to be in a state of damnation and sin properly because the Church baptizes them and Baptism is for the remission of sins Thou seest how many benefits there are of Baptism But many think that the grace of baptism consists only in the remission of sins But we have reckoned 〈◊〉 honours of baptism For this cause we baptize infants although they are not polluted with sin to wit that to them may be added sanctity justice adoption inheritance and the fraternity of Christ Divers other things might be transcribed to the same purposes out of S. Chrysostome but these are abundantly sufficient to prove that I have said nothing new in this Article Theodoret does very often consent with S.
subjected in humane Nature for if it were otherwise then an universal should be more particular than that which is Individual and a whole should be less than a part actiones sunt suppositorum and so for omissions now every sin is either one or other and therefore it is impossible that this which is an affection of an universal viz. of humane Nature can be a sin for a sin is a breach of some Law to which not Natures but Persons are obliged and which Natures cannot break because not Natures but persons only do or neglect 30. That Naturally is engendred of the off-spring of Adam This clause is inserted to exclude Christ from the participation of Adams sin But if concupiscence which is in every mans Nature be a sin it is certain Christ had no concupiscence or natural desires for he had no sin But if he had no concupiscence or natural desires how he should be a man or how capable of law or how he should serve God with choice where there could be no potentia ad oppositum I think will be very hard to be understood Christ felt all our infirmities yet without sin All our infirmities are the effects of the sin of Adam and part of that which we call Original sin therefore all these our infirmities which Christ felt as in him they were for ever without sin so as long as they are only Natural Unconsented to must be in us without sin For whatsoever is Naturally in us is Naturally in him but a man is not a man without Natural desires therefore these were in him in him without sin and therefore so in us without sin I mean properly really and formally But there 's a Catachresis also in these words or an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naturally engendred of the off-spring of Adam Cain and Abel and Seth and all the sons of Adam who were the first off-spring and not engendred of the off-spring of Adam were as guilty as we But they came from Adam but not from Adams off-spring therefore the Articles is to be expounded to the sence of these words Naturally engendred or are of the off-spring of Adam 31. Whereby Man is very far gone from Original Righteousness That is men are devolved to their Natural condition devested of all those gifts and graces which God gave to Adam in order to his supernatural end and by the help of which he stood in Gods favour and innocent until the fatal period of his fall This Original Righteousness or innocence we have not Naturally for our Natural innocence is but Negative that is we have not consented to sin The Righteousness he had before his fall I suppose was not only that but also his doing many actions of obedience and intercourse with God even all which passed between God and himself till his eating the forbidden fruit For he had this advantage over us He was created in a full use of reason we his descendents enter into the world in the greatest imperfection and are born under a law which we break before we can understand and it is imputed to us as our understanding increases And our desires are strongest when our Understanding is weakest and therefore by this very Oeconomy which is natural to us we must needs in the Condition of our nature be very far from Adams Original Righteousness who had perfect reason before he had a law and had understanding assoon as he had desires This clause thus understood is most reasonable and true but the effect of it can be nothing in prejudice of the main business and if any thing else be meant by it I cannot understand it to have any ground in Scripture or Reason and I am sure our Church does not determine for it 32. And is inclined to evil That every Man is inclined to evil some more some less but all in some instances is very true and it is an effect or condition of nature but no sin properly Because that which is unavoidable is not a sin 2. Because it is accidental to nature not intrinsecal and essential 3. It is superinduc'd to Nature and is after it and comes by reason of the laws which God made after he made our Nature he brought us laws to check our Nature to cross and displease that by so doing we may prefer God before our selves this also with some variety for in some laws there is more liberty than in others and therefore less Natural inclination to disobedience 4. Because our Nature is inclined to good and not to evil in some instances that is in those which are according to nature and there is no greater Endearment of vertue than the Law and Inclination of Nature in all the Instances of that Law 5. Because that which is intended for the occasion of vertue and reward is not Naturally and essentially the principle of Evil. 6. In the instances in which Naturally we incline to evil the inclination is naturally good because it is to its proper object but that it becomes morally evil must be personal for the law is before our persons it cannot be Natural because the law by which that desire can become evil is after it 33. So that the flesh lusteth against the spirit This clause declares what kind of inclination to evil is esteemed criminal That which is approved that which passeth to act that which is personally delighted in in the contention which is after regeneration or reception of the Holy Spirit For the flesh cannot lust against the spirit in them that have not the spirit unless both the principles be within there can be no contention between them as a man cannot fight a duel alone so that this is not the sin of Nature but of persons for though potentially it is sin yet actually and really it is none until it resist the spirit of God which is the principle put into us to restore us to as good a state at least as that was which we were receded from in Adam By the way it is observable that the Article makes only concupiscence or lusting to be the effect of Adams sin but affirms nothing of the loss of the wills liberty or diminution of the understanding or the rebellion of the passions against reason but only against the spirit which certainly is Natural to it and in Adam did rebel against Gods Commandments when it was the in-let to the sin and therefore could not be a punishment of it And therefore The illative conjunction expresly declares that the sence of the Church of England is that this corruption of our Nature in no other sence and for no other reason is criminal but because it does resist the Holy spirit therefore it is not evil till it does so and therefore if it does not it is not evil For if the very inclination were a sin then when this inclination is contested against at the same time and in the same things the man sins and does well and he can never have a
temptation but he offends God and then how we should understand S. James's rule that we should count it all joy when we enter into temptation is beyond my reach and apprehension The Natural inclination hath in it nothing moral and g. as it is good in Nature so it is not ill in manners the supervening consent or dissent makes it morally good or evil 34. In every person born into the world it deserveth Gods wrath and damnation Viz. When it is so consented to when it resists and overcomes the spirit of grace For we being devested of the grace given to the first Adam are to be renewed by the spirit of grace the effect of the second Adam which grace when we resist we do as Adam did and reduce our selves back into the state where Adam left us That was his sin and not ours but this is our sin and not his both of them deserve Gods wrath and damnation but by one he deserved it and by the other we deserve it But then it is true that this corrupted Nature deserves Gods wrath but we and Adam deserve not in the same formality but in the same material part we do He left our Nature naked and for it he deserved Gods wrath if we devest our Nature of the new grace we return to the same state of Nature but then we deserve Gods wrath so that still the object of Gods wrath is our mere Nature so as left by Adam but though he sinned in the first disrobing and we were imperfect by it yet we sin not till the second disrobing and then we return to the same imperfection and make it worse But I consider that although some Churches in their confessions express it yet the Church of England does not they add the word Eternal to Damnation but our Church abstains from that therefore Gods wrath and damnation can signifie the same that damnation does in S. Paul all the effects of Gods anger Temporal Death and the miseries of mortality was the effect of Adams sin and of our being reduc'd to the Natural and Corrupted or worsted state Or secondly they may signifie the same that hatred does in S. Paul and in Malachi Esau have I hated that is lov'd him less or did not give him what he was born to he lost the primogeniture and the Priesthood and the blessing So do we naturally fall short of Heaven This is hatred or the wrath of God and his Judgment upon the sin of Adam to condemn us to a state of imperfection and misery and death and deficiency from supernatural happiness all which I grant to be the effect of Adams sin and that our imperfect Nature deserves this that is it can deserve no better 35. And this infection of Nature Viz. This imperfection not any inherent quality that by contact pollutes the relatives and descendants but this abuse and reproach of our Nature this stain of our Nature by taking off the supernatural grace and beauties put into it like the cutting off the beards of Davids Embassadors or stripping a man of his robe and turning him abroad in his natural shame leaving him naked as Adam and we were But the word infection being metaphorical may aptly signifie any thing that is analogical to it and may mean a Natural habitude or inclination to forbidden instances But yet it signifies a very great evil for in the best Authors to be such by Nature means an aggravation of it So Carion in Aristophanes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This man is very miserable or miserable by Nature and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do you believe me to be such a man by Nature that I can speak nothing well 36. Doth remain yea in them that are regenerated That is all the baptized and unbaptized receive from Adam nothing but what is inclined to forbidden instances which is a principle against which and above which the spirit of God does operate For this is it which is called the lust of the flesh for so it follows whereby the lust of the flesh that is the desires and pronenesses to Natural objects which by Gods will came to be limited order'd and chastis'd curb'd and restrain'd 37. Called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here it is plain that the Church of England though she found it necessary to declare something in the fierce contention of the time in order to peace and unity of expression yet she was not willing too minutely to declare and descend to the particulars on either side and therefore she was pleas'd to make use of the Greek word of the sence of which there were so many disputes and recites the most usual redditions of the word 38. Which some do expound the wisdom some the sensuality some the affection some the desire of the flesh is not subject to the law of God These several expositions reciting several things and the Church of England reciting all indefinitely but definitely declaring for none of them does only in the generality affirm that the flesh and spirit are contrary principles that the flesh resists the law of God but the spirit obeys it that is by the flesh alone we cannot obey Gods law naturally we cannot become the sons of God and heirs of Heaven but it must be a new birth by a spiritual regeneration The wisdom of the flesh that is Natural and secular principles are not apt dispositions to make us obedient to the law of God Sensuality that signifies an habitual lustfulness Desires signifie actual Lustings Affections signifie the Natural inclination now which of these is here meant the Church hath not declar'd but by the other words of the Article it is most probable She rather inclines to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by desires and sensuality rather than by affection or wisdom though of these also in their own sence it is true to affirm that they are not subject to the law of God there being some foolish principles which the flesh and the world is apt to entertain which are hindrances to holiness and the affection that is inclination to some certain objects being that very thing which the laws of God have restrained more or less in several periods of the world may without inconvenience to the Question be admitted to expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 39. And although there is no condemnation to them that believe and are baptized That is this concupiscence or inclination to forbidden instances is not imputed to the baptized nor to the regenerate that is when the new principle of grace and of the spirit is put into us we are reduced to as great a condition and as certain an order and a capacity of entring into Heaven as Adam was before his fall for then we are drawn from that mere natural state where Adam left us and therefore although these do die yet it is but the condition of nature not the punishment of the sin For Adams sin brought in Death and baptism and regeneration does not hinder
But the Spirit of God does dwell in all the servants of God in all the regenerate For if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his Now as these are in Scripture distinguished in their appellatives and in their character so also in their operations They that are carnal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the flesh do mind or relish the things of the flesh They that are after the Spirit do mind the things of the Spirit And they that are Christs have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts Now they that have crucified the flesh cannot in any sence of Scripture or Religion be called Carnal That there is something of carnality in the regenerate is too true because our regeneration and spirituality in this life is imperfect But when carnal and spiritual are oppos'd in Scripture and the Question is Whether of these two is to be attributed to the servants and sons of God to the Regenerate It is certain by the analogy of the thing and the perpetual manner of speaking in Scripture that by this word Carnal the Spirit of God never means the sons of God or the spiritual that is the Regenerate The sons of God are led by the Spirit of God therefore not by the flesh which they have crucified Whatsoever is essential to regeneration to new birth to the being the sons of God all that is in the regenerate for they cannot be that thing of which they want an essential part as a thing cannot be a body unless it be divisible nor a living creature if it have not life Therefore regeneration is perfect in respect of its essentials or necessary parts of constitution But in the degrees there is imperfection and therefore the abatement is made by the intermixture of carnality For it is in our new and spiritual birth as in our natural The child is a man in all essential parts but he is as a beast in some of his operations he hath all the faculties of a man but not the strengths of a man but grows to it by the progression and encrease of every day So is the spiritual man regenerate in his mind his will his affections and therefore when carnal and spiritual are oppos'd in their whole nature and definitions the spiritual man is not the carnal though he still retain some of the weaknesses of the flesh against which he contends every day To this purpose are those words of S. Leo. Quamvis spe salvi facti sumus corruptionem adhuc carnémque mortalem gestamus rectè tamen dicimur in carne non esse si carnales nobis non dominentur affectus meritò ejus deponimus â—uncupationem cujus non sequimur voluntatem We are not to be called Carnal though we bear about us flesh and its infirmities yet if carnal affections do not rule over us well are we to quit the name when we do not obey the thing Now if any man shall contend that a man may be called Carnal if the flesh strives against the Spirit though sin does not rule I shall not draw the Saw of Contention with him but only say that it is not usually so in Scripture and in this place of which we now dispute the sence and use it is not so for by Carnal S. Paul means such a person upon whom sin reigns I am carnal sold under sin therefore this person is not the spiritual not the regenerate or the son of God S. Paul uses the word Carnal in a comparative locution for babes and infants or unskilful persons in the Religion but then this carnality he proves to be in them wholly by their inordinate walking by their strifes and contentions by their being Schismaticks and therefore he reproves them which he had no reason to do if himself also had been carnal in that sence which he reproves 17. The Conclusion from all these premises is I suppose sufficiently demonstrated that S. Paul does not in the seventh Chapter to the Romans describe the state of himself really or of a regenerate person neither is this state of doing sin frequently though against our will a state of unavoidable infirmity but a state of death and unregeneration SECT III. 18. SAint Austin did for ever reject that interpretation and indeed so did the whole Primitive Church but yet he having once expounded this Chapter of the unregenerate or a man under the law not redeemed by the Spirit of Christ from his vain conversation he retracted this Exposition and constru'd those words in question thus Non ergo quod vult agit Apostolus quia vult non concupiscere tamen concupiscit ideo non quod vult agit The Apostle does not do what he would because he would fain not desire but yet because he desires he does what he would not Did that desire lead him captive to fornication God forbid He did strive but was not mastered but because he would not have had that concupiscence left against which he should contend therefore he said What I would not that I do meaning I would not lust but I do lust The same also I find in Epiphanius Nam quod dictum est Quod operor non cognosco facio quod odio habeo non de eo quod operati sumus ac perfecimus malum accipiendum est sed de eo quod solum cogitavimus Now this interpretation hath in it no impiety as the other hath for these Doctors allow nothing to be unavoidable or a sin of infirmity and consistent with the state of grace and regeneration but the mere ineffective unprocured desirings or lustings after evil things to which no consent is given and in which no delight is taken extraneae cogitationes quas cogitavimus aliquando non volentes non scientes ex quâ causâ as Epiphanius expresses this Article But S. Austin may be thought to have had some design in chusing this sence as supposing it would serve for an argument against the Pelagians and their sence of Free will For by representing the inevitability of sin he destroyed their doctrine of the sufficiency of our natural powers in order to Heaven and therefore by granting that S. Paul complains thus of his own infirmity he believed himself to have concluded firmly for the absolute necessity of Gods grace to help us But by limiting this inevitability of sinning to the matter of desires or concupiscence he gave no allowance or pretence to any man to speak any evil words or to delight or consent to any evil thoughts or to commit any sinful actions upon the pretence of their being sins of an unavoidable infirmity So that though he was desirous to serve the ends of his present question yet he was careful that he did not disserve the interests of Religion and a holy life But besides that the holy Scriptures abound in nothing more than in affirming our needs and the
excellency of the Divine grace and S. Austin needed not to have been put to his shifts in this Question it is considerable that his first Exposition had done his business better For if these words of S. Paul be as indeed they are to be expounded of an unregenerate man one under the law but not under grace nothing could more have magnified Gods grace than that an unregenerate person could not by all the force of nature nor the aids of the law nor the spirit of fear nor temporal hopes be redeem'd from the slavery and tyranny of sin and that from this state there is no redemption but by the Spirit of God and the grace of the Lord Jesus which is expresly affirmed and proved by S. Paul if you admit this sence of the words And therefore Irenaeus who did so cites these words to the same effect viz. for the magnifying the grace of God Ipse Dominus erat qui salvabat eos quia per semetipsos non habebant salvari Et propter hoc Paulus infirmitatem hominis annuncians ait Scio enim quoniam non habitat in carne meâ bonum significans quoniam non à nobis sed à Deo est bonum salutis Et iterum Miser ego homo quis me liberabit de corpore mortis hujus Deinde infert liberatorem Gratia Jesu Christi Domini nostri S. Paul's complaint shews our own infirmity and that of our selves we cannot be saved but that our salvation is of God and the grace of our Redeemer Jesus Christ. But whatever S. Austins design might be in making the worse choice it matters not much only to the interpretation it self I have these considerations to oppose 19. I. Because the phrase is insolent and the exposition violent to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by concupiscere to do is more than to desire factum dictum concupitum are the several kinds and degrees of sinning assigned by S. Austin himself and therefore they cannot be confounded and one made to expound the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also used here by the Apostle which in Scripture signifies sometimes to sin habitually never less than actually and the other word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies perficere patrare to finish the act at least or to do a sin throughly and can in no sence be reasonably expounded by natural ineffective and unavoidable desires And it is observable that when S. Austin in prosecution of this device is to expound those words to will is present with me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to perform what is good I find not he makes the word to signifie to do it perfectly which is as much beyond as the other sence of the same word is short What I do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I approve not Therefore the man does not do his sin perfectly he does the thing imperfectly for he does it against his conscience and with an imperfect choice but he does the thing however So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie to do the good imperfectly the action it self only for such was this mans impotency that he could not obtain power to do even imperfectly the good he desir'd The evil he did though against his mind but the good he could not because it was against the law of sin which reigned in him But then the same word must not to serve ends be brought to signifie a perfect work and yet not to signifie so much as a perfect desire 20. II. The sin which S. Paul under another person complains of is such a sin as did first deceive him and then slew him but concupiscence does not kill till it proceeds further as S. James expresly affirms that concupiscence when it hath conceived brings forth sin and sin when it is finished brings forth death which is the just parallel to what S. Paul says in this very Chapter The passions of sins which were by the law did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death peccatum perpetratum when the desires are acted then sin is deadly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the passions or first motions of sin which come upon us nobis non volentibus nec scientibus whether we will or no these are not imputed to us unto death but are the matter of vertue when they are resisted and contradicted but when they are consented to and delighted in then it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sin in conception with death and will proceed to action unless it be hindred from without and therefore it is then the same sin by interpretation Adulterium cordis so our blessed Saviour called it in that instance the adultery of the heart but till it be an actual sin some way or other it does not bring forth death 21. III. It is an improper and ungrammatical manner of speaking to say Nolo concupiscere or Volo non concupiscere I will lust or I will not lust i. e. I will or I will not desire or will For this lust or first motions of desire are before an act of will the first act of which is when these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these motions and passions are consented to or rejected These motions are natural and involuntary and are no way in our power but when they are occasion'd by an act of the Will collaterally and indirectly or by applying the proper incentives to the faculty Vellem non concupiscere every good man must say I would fain be free from concupiscence but because he cannot it is not subject to his Will and he cannot say volo I will be free and therefore S. Paul's Volo and Nolo are not intended of Concupiscence or desires 22. IV. The good which S. Austin says the Apostle fain would but could not perfect or do it perfectly is Non concupiscere not to have concupiscence Volo non perficio but Concupiscere is but velle it is not so much and therefore cannot be more So that when he says to will is present with me he must mean to desire well is present with me but to do this I find not that is if S. Austins interpretation be true though I do desire well yet I do lust and do not desire well for still concupisco I lust and I lust not I have concupiscence and I have it not which is a contradiction 23. Many more things might be observed from the words of the Apostle to overthrow this exposition but the truth when it is proved will sufficiently reprove what is not true and therefore I shall apply my self to consider the proper intention and design of the Apostle in those so much mistaken periods SECT IV. 24. COncerning which these things are to be cleared upon which the whole issue will depend 1. That S. Paul speaks not in his own person as an Apostle or a Christian a man who is regenerate but in the person of a Jew one under the law one that is not regenerate 2. That
this state which he describes is the state of a carnal man under the corruption of his nature upon whom the law had done some change but had not cured him 3. That from this state of evil we are redeemed by the Spirit of Christ by the Grace of the Gospel and now a Child of God cannot complain this complaint 25. I. That he puts on the person of another by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or translation as was usual with S. Paul in very many places of his Epistles is evident by his affirming that of the man whom he here describes which of himself were not true I was alive without the law once Of S. Paul's own person this was not true for he was bred and born under the law circumcised the eighth day an Hebrew of the Hebrews as touching the law a Pharisee he never was alive without the law But the Israelites were whom he therefore represents indefinitely under a single person the whole Nation before and under the law I was alive once without the law but when the Commandment came that is when the law was given sin revived and I died that is by occasion of the law sin grew stronger and prevailed 2. But concerning the Christian and his present condition he expresly makes it separate from that of being under the law and consequently under sin But now we are delivered from the law that being dead wherein we were held that we should serve in newness of the spirit and not in the oldness of the letter We are delivered It is plain that some sort of men are freed from that sad condition of things of which he there complains and if any be it must be the regenerate And so it is For the scope of the Apostle in this Chapter is to represent and prove that salvation is not to be had by the law but by Jesus Christ and that by that discipline men cannot be contain'd in their duty and therefore that it was necessary to forsake the law and to come to Christ. To this purpose he brings in a person complaining that under the discipline of the law he was still under the power of sin Now if this had been also true of a regenerate person of a Christian renewed by the Spirit of grace then it had been no advantage to have gone from the Law to Christ as to this argument for still the Christian would be under the same slavery which to be the condition of one under the law S. Paul was to urge as an argument to call them from Moses to Christ. 26. II. That this state which he now describes is the state of a carnal man under the corruption of his nature appears by his saying that sin had wrought in him all manner of concupiscence that sin revived and he died that the motions of sin which were by the law did work in the members to bring forth fruit unto death and that this was when we were in the flesh that he is carnal sold under sin that he is carried into captivity to the law of sin that sin dwells in him and is like another person doing or constraining him to do things against his mind that it is a State and a Government a Law and a Tyranny For that which I do I allow not plainly saying that this doing what we would not that is doing against our conscience upon the strength of passion and in obedience to the law of sin was the state of them who indeed were under the law but the effect of carnality and the viciousness of their natural and ungracious condition Here then is the description of a natural and carnal man He sins frequently he sins against his conscience he is carnal and sold under sin sin dwells in him and gives him laws he is a slave to sin and led into captivity Now if this could be the complaint of a regenerate man from what did Christ come to redeem us how did he take away our sins did he only take off the punishment and still leave us to wallow in the impurities and baser pleasures perpetually to rail upon our sins and yet perpetually to do them How did he come to bless us in turning every one of us from our iniquity How and in what sence could it be true which the Apostle affirms He did bear our sins in his own body on the tree that we being dead unto sin should live unto righteousness But this proposition I suppose my self to have sufficiently proved in the reproof of the first exposition of these words in question only I shall in present add the concurrent testimony of some Doctors of the Primitive Church Tertullian hath these words Nam etsi habitare bonum in carne suâ negavit sed secundum legem literae in quâ fuit secundum autem legem Spiritus cui nos annectit liberat ab infirmitate carnis Lex enim inquit Spiritus vitae manumisit te à lege delinquentiae mortis Licet enim ex parte ex Judaismo disputare videatur sed in nos dirigit integritatem plenitudinem disciplinarum propter quos laborantes in lege per carnem miserit Deus filium suum in similitudinem carnis delinquentiae propter delinquentiam damnaverit delinquentiam in carne Plainly he expounds this Chapter to be meant of a man under the law according to the law of the letter under which himself had been he denied any good to dwell in his flesh but according to the law of the Spirit under which we are plac'd he frees us from the infirmity of the flesh for he saith the law of the Spirit of life hath freed us from the law of sin and death Origen affirms that when S. Paul says I am carnal sold under sin Tanquam Doctor Ecclesiae personam in semetipsum suscipit infirmorum he takes upon him the person of the infirm that is of the carnal and says those words which themselves by way of excuse or apology use to speak But yet says he this person which S. Paul puts on although Christ does not dwell in him neither is his body the Temple of the holy Ghost yet he is not wholly a stranger from good but by his will and by his purpose he begins to look after good things But he cannot yet obtain to do them For there is such an infirmity in those who begin to be converted that is whose mind is convinc'd but their affections are not master'd that when they would presently do all good yet an effect did not follow their desires S. Chrysostom hath a large Commentary upon this Chapter and his sence is perfectly the same Propterea subnexuit dicens Ego verò carnalis sum hominem describens sub lege ante legem degentem S. Paul describes not himself but a man living under and before the law and of such a one he says but I am carnal Who please to see more
the tenure of death Here then are three Combatants the Flesh the Conscience the Spirit The flesh endeavours to subject the man to the law of sin the other two endeavour to subject him to the law of God The flesh and the conscience or mind contend but this contention is no sign of being regenerate because the Flesh prevails most commonly against the Mind where there is nothing else to help it the man is still a captive to the law of sin But the Mind being worsted God sends in the auxiliaries of the Spirit and when that enters and possesses that overcomes the flesh it rules and gives laws But as in the unregenerate the Mind did strive though it was over-power'd yet still it contended but ineffectively for the most part so now when the Spirit rules the flesh strives but it prevails but seldom it is over-powered by the Spirit Now this contention is a sign of regeneration when the flesh lusteth against the Spirit not when the flesh lusteth against the mind or conscience For the difference is very great and highly to be remark'd And it is represented in two places of S. Pauls Epistles The one is that which I have already explicated in this Chapter I consent to the law of God according to the inner man But I see another law in my members fighting against the law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin that is in my members where there is a redundancy in the words but the Apostle plainly signifies that the law of sin which is in his members prevails that is sin rules the man in despite of all the contention and reluctancy of his conscience or the law of his mind So that this strife of flesh and conscience is no sign of the regenerate because the mind of a man is in subordination to the flesh of the man sometimes willingly and perfectly sometimes unwillingly and imperfectly 32. I deny not but the mind is sometimes called Spirit and by consequence improperly it may be said that even in these men their spirit lusteth against the flesh That is the more rational faculties contend against the brute parts reason against passion law against sin Thus the word Spirit is taken for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the inner man the whole mind together with its affections Mat. 26.4 and Acts 19.21 But in this Question the word Spirit is distinguished from Mind and is taken for the mind renewed by the Spirit of God and as these words are distinguished so must their several contentions be remark'd For when the mind or conscience and the flesh fight the flesh prevails but when the Spirit and the flesh fight the Spirit prevails And by that we shall best know who are the litigants that like the two sons of Rebecca strive within us If the flesh prevails then there was in us nothing but law of the mind nothing but the conscience of an unregenerate person I mean if the flesh prevails frequently or habitually But if the Spirit of God did rule us if that principle had possession of us then the flesh is crucified it is mortified it is killed and prevails not at all but when we will not use the force and arms of the Spirit but it does not prevail habitually not frequently or regularly or by observation This is clearly taught by those excellent words of S. Paul which as many other periods of his Epistles have had the ill luck to be very much misunderstood This I say then walk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh so that ye cannot that ye do not or may not do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things that ye would But if ye be led by the Spirit ye are not under the law The word in the Greek may either signifie duty or event Walk in the Spirit and fulfil not or ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh If we understand it in the Imperative sence then it is exegetical of the former words He that walks in the Spirit hoc ipso does not fulfil the lusts of the flesh To do one is not to do the other whoever fulfils the lusts of the flesh and is rul'd by that law he is not ruled by the grace of Christ he is not regenerate by the Spirit But the other sence is the best reddition of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he had said Walk in the Spirit and then the event will i◠that the flesh shall not prevail over you or give you laws you shall not then fulfil the lusts thereof And this is best agreeable to the purpose of the Apostle For having exhorted the Galatians that they should not make their Christian liberty a pretence to the flesh as the best remedy against their enemy the flesh he prescribes this walking in the Spirit which is a certain deletery and prevalency over the flesh And the reason follows for the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh so that ye cannot do the things that ye would that is though ye be inclined to and desirous of satisfying your carnal desires yet being under the Empire and conduct of the Spirit ye cannot do those desires the Spirit over-rules you and you must you will contradict your carnal appetites For else this could not be as the Apostle designs it a reason of his exhortation For if he had meant that in this contention of flesh and Spirit we could not do the good things that we would then the reason had contradicted the proposition For suppose it thus Walk in the Spirit and fulfil not the lusts of the flesh For the flesh and the Spirit lust against each other so that ye cannot do the good ye would This I say is not sence for the latter part contradicts the former For this thing that the flesh hinders us from doing the things of the Spirit is so far from being a reason why we should walk in the Spirit that it perfectly discourages that design and it is to little purpose to walk in the Spirit if this will not secure us against the domineering and tyranny of the flesh But the contrary is most clear and consequent If ye walk in the Spirit ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh for though the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and would fain prevail yet it cannot for the Spirit also lusteth against the flesh and is stronger so that ye may not or that ye do not or that ye cannot for any of these readings as it may properly render the words of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so are not against the design of the Apostle do what ye otherwise would fain do and therefore if ye will walk in the Spirit ye are secured against the flesh 33. The result is this 1. An impious profane person sins without any contention that is with a
by ignorance or inadvertency The unregenerate sins unwillingly too but it is by reason of the dominion and rule that sin bears over him but still this difference distinguishes them in the event of things that when it comes to the question whether sin shall be done or no the one wills and the other wills not though it may happen that the consent or dissent respectively may be with the same unwillingness by reason of the contention and strife from the adverse though weaker party The unregenerate man may be unwilling to obey sin but he obeys it for all that and the unwillingness is a sign of the greater slavery but there can be no sign of his regeneration but by not obeying the sin in the day of its own power and temptation A servant is still a servant whether he obeys with or against his will His servants we are to whom we obey saith S. Paul all therefore that is to be considered in the Question of regeneration is whether the man obeys or not obeys for whether he be willing or unwilling is not here considerable Let no man therefore flatter himself that he is a regenerate person because though he is a servant to sin and acts at the command of his lust and cannot resist in the evil day or stand the shock of a temptation yet he finds an unwillingness within him and a strife against sin Hugo de S. Victore or else S. Austin in the Book de continentiâ gave beginning or countenance to this error Hanc pugnam non experiuntur in semetipsis nisi bellatores virtutum debellatorésque vitiorum This fight none find in themselves but they that fight on vertues side and destroy vice Which words though something crudely set down and so not true yet are explicable by the following period Non expugnat concupiscentiae malum nisi continentiae bonum only holy and continent persons do overcome their concupiscence and in that sence it is true Only the regenerate feel this fight which ends in victory But he whose contention ends in sin and after a brave on-set yields basely frequently I mean or habitually every such person is a servant of sin and therefore not a servant of the spirit but free from that is not rul'd by the law of righteousness And this is so certain that this unwillingness to sin which ends in obeying it is so far from being a note of a regenerate person that it is evidently true that no man can come from the servitude or slavery of sin but the first step of his going from it is the sense and hatred of his fetters and then his desire of being freed but therefore he is not free because he complains of his bands and finds them heavy and intolerable and therefore seeks for remedy For if an unregenerate person did always sin willingly that is without this reluctancy and strife within and the regenerate did sin as infallibly but yet sore against his will then the regenerate person were the verier slave of the two for he that obeys willingly is less a slave than he that obeys in spight of his heart Libertatis servaveris umbram Si quicquid jubeare velis He that delights in his fetters hath at least the shadow and some of the pleasure of liberty but he hath nothing of it who is kept fast and groans because his feet are hurt in the stocks and the iron entreth into his soul. It was the sad state and complaint of the Romans when by the iniquity of war and the evil success of their armies they were forc'd to entertain their bondage tot rebus iniquis Paeruimus victi venia est haec sola pudoris Degenerìsque metus nil jam potuisse negari It was a conquest that gave them laws and their ineffective strugling and daily murmurs were but ill arguments of their liberty which were so great demonstrations of their servitude 37. III. An unregenerate man may not only will and desire to do Natural or Moral good things but even Spiritual and Evangelical that is not only that good which he is taught by natural reason or by civil sanctions or by use and experience of things but even that also which is only taught us by the Spirit of grace For if he can desire the first much more may he desire the latter when he once comes to know it because there is in spiritual good things much more amability they are more perfective of our mind and a greater advancer of our hopes and a security to our greatest interest Neither can this be prejudic'd by those words of S. Paul The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit for they are foolishness unto him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned For the natural man S. Paul speaks of is one unconverted to Christianity the Gentile Philosophers who relied upon such principles of nature as they understood but studied not the Prophets knew not of the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles nor of those excellent verifications of the things of the Spirit and therefore these men could not arrive at spiritual notices because they did not go that way which was the only competent and proper instrument of finding them Scio incapacem te Sacramenti impie Non posse caecis mentibus mysterium Haurire nostrum They that are impious and they that go upon distinct principles neither obeying the proposition nor loving the Commandment they indeed viz. remaining in that indisposition cannot receive that is entertain him And this is also the sence of the words of our blessed Saviour The world cannot receive him that is the unbelievers such who will not be perswaded by arguments Evangelical But a man may be a spiritual man in his notices and yet be carnal in his affections and still under the bondage of sin Such are they of whom S. Peter affirms it is better they had never known the way of righteousness than having known it to fall away Such are they of whom S. Paul says They detain the truth in unrighteousness Now concerning this man it is that I affirm that upon the same account as any vicious man can commend vertue this man also may commend holiness and desire to be a holy man and wishes it with all his heart there being the same proportion between his mind and the things of the Spirit as between a Jew and the Moral Law or a Gentile and Moral vertue that is he may desire it with passion and great wishings But here is the difference A regenerate man does what the unregenerate man does but desire 38. IV. An unregenerate man may leave many sins which he is commanded to forsake For it is not ordinarily possible that so perfect a conviction as such men may have of the excellency of religion should be in all instances and periods totally ineffective Something they will give to reputation something to fancy something to fame something to peace something
faith without charity dead and ineffective A working faith and a working prayer are the great instruments and the great exercise and the great demonstration of holiness and Christian perfection Children can sit down in a storm or in a danger and weep and die but men can labour against it and struggle with the danger and labour for that blessing which they beg Thou dost not desire it unless thou wilt labour for it He that sits still and wishes had rather have that thing than be without it but if he will not use the means he had rather lose his desire than lose his ease That is scarce worth having that is not worth labouring 76. XI In all contentions against sin and infirmity remember that what was done yesterday may be done to day and by the same instruments by which then you were conqueror you may also be so in every day of temptation The Italian General that quitted his vanity and his imployment upon the sight of one that died suddenly might upon the same consideration actually applied and fitted to the fancy at any time resist his lust And therefore Epictetus gives it in rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let death be always before thy eyes and then thou shalt never desire any base or low thing nor desire any thing too much That is the perpetual application of so great a consideration as is death is certainly the greatest endearment of holiness and severity And certain it is that at some time or other the greatest part of Christians have had some horrible apprehensions of Hell of Death and consequent Damnation and it hath put into them holy thoughts and resolutions of piety and if ever they were in a severe sickness and did really fear death they may remember with how great a regret they did then look upon their sins and then they thought Heaven a considerable interest and Hell a formidable state and would not then have committed a sin for the purchase of the world Now every man hath always the same arguments and endearments of piety and religion Heaven and Hell are always the same considerable things and the truth is the same still but then they are considered most and therefore they prevail most and this is a demonstration that the arguments themselves are sufficient and would always do the work of grace for us if we were not wanting to our selves It is impossible that any man can be mov'd by any argument in the world or any interest any hope or any fear who cannot be moved by the consideration of Heaven and Hell But that which I observe is this that the argument that wisely and reasonably prevail'd yesterday can prevail to day unless thou thy self beest foolish and unreasonable 77. XII If a wicked man sins it is never by a pitiable or pardonable infirmity but from a state of death that it proceeds or will be so imputed and it is all one as if it did But if a good man sins he hath the least reason to pretend infirmity for his excuse because he hath the strengths of the Spirit and did master sin in its strengths and in despight of all its vigorousness and habit and therefore certainly can do so much rather when sin is weak and grace is strong The result of which consideration is this That no man should please himself in his sin because it is a sin of infirmity He that is pleased with it because he thinks it is indulg'd to him sins with pleasure and therefore not of infirmity for that is ever against our will and besides our observation No sin is a sin of infirmity unless we hate it and strive against it He that hath gotten some strength may pretend some infirmity But he that hath none is dead 78. XIII Let no man think that the proper evil of his age or state or of his Nation is in the latitude and nature of it a sin of a pardonable infirmity The lusts of youth and the covetousness or pride of old age and the peevishness of the afflicted are states of evil not sins of infirmity For it is highly considerable that sins of infirmity are but single ones There is no such thing as a state of a pardonable infirmity If by distemper of the body or the vanity of years or the evil customs of a Nation a vice does creep upon and seise on the man it is that against which the man ought to watch and pray and labour it is a state of danger and temptation But that must not be called infirmity which corrupts Nations and states of life but that only which in single instances surprises even a watchful person when his guards are most remiss 79. XIV Whatsoever sin comes regularly or by observation is not to be excused upon the pretence of infirmity but is the indication of an evil habit Therefore never admit a sin upon hopes of excuse for it is certain no evil that a man chuses is excusable No man sins with a pardon about his neck But if the sin comes at a certain time it comes from a certain cause and then it cannot be infirmity for all sins of infirmity are sins of chance irregular and accidental 80. XV. Be curious to avoid all proverbs and propositions or odd sayings by which evil life is incouraged and the hands of the Spirit weakned It is strange to consider what a prejudice to a mans understanding of things is a contrary proverb Can any good thing come out of Galilee And when Christ cometh no man knoweth whence he is Two or three proverbs did in despight of all the miracles and holy doctrines and rare example of Christ hinder many of the Jews from believing in him The words of S. Paul misunderstood and worse applied have been so often abused to evil purposes that they have almost passed into a proverbial excuse The evil that I would not that I do Such sayings as these are to be tried by the severest measures and all such sences of them which are enemies to holiness of life are to be rejected because they are against the whole Oeconomy and design of the Gospel of the life and death of Christ. But a proverb being used by every man is supposed to contain the opinion and belief or experience of mankind and then that evil sence that we are pleased to put to them will be thought to be of the same authority I have heard of divers persons who have been strangely intic'd on to finish their revellings and drunken conventicles by a catch or a piece of a song by a humor and a word by a bold saying or a common proverb and whoever take any measures of good or evil but the severest discourses of reason and religion will be like a Ship turned every way by a little piece of wood by chance and by half a sentence because they dwell upon the water and a wave of the Sea is their foundation 81. XVI Let every man take heed of a
could not absolve such persons in plain speaking seems to mean that since the Church ministers nothing of her own but is the Minister of the Divine mercy she had no commission to promise pardon to such persons If God had promised pardon to such Criminals it is certain the Church was bound to preach it but if she could not declare preach or exhibite any such promise then there was no such promise and therefore their sending them to God was but a put off or a civil answer saying that God might do it if he please but he had not signified his pleasure concerning them and whether they who sinn'd so foully after Baptism were pardonable was no where revealed and therefore all the Ministers of Religion were bound to say they were unpardonable that is God never said he would pardon them which is the full sence of the word Vnpardonable For he that says any sin is unpardonable does not mean that God cannot pardon it but that he will not or that he hath not said he will 25. And upon the same account it seem'd unreasonable to S. Ambrose that the Church should impose penances and not release the penitents He complain'd of the Novatians for so doing Cùm utique veniam negando incentivum auferant poenitentiae The penitents could have little encouragement to perform the injunctions of their Confessors when after they had done them they should not be admitted to the Churches communion And indeed the case was hard when it should be remembred that whatsoever the Church did bind on Earth was bound in Heaven and if they retain'd them below God would do so above and therefore we find in Scripture that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give repentance being the purpose of Christ's coming and the grace of the Gospel does mean to give the effect of Repentance that is pardon And since Gods method is such by giving the grace and admitting us to do the duty he consequently brings to that mercy which is the end of that duty it is fit that should also be the method of the Church 26. For the ballancing of this Consideration we are further to consider that though the Church had power to pardon in all things where God had declar'd he would yet because in some sins the malice was so great the scandal so intolerable the effect so mischievous the nature of them so contradictory to the excellent laws of Christianity the Church many times could not give a competent judgment whether any man that had committed great sins had made his amends and done a sufficient penance and the Church not knowing whether their Repentance was worthy and acceptable to God she could not pronounce their pardon that is she could not tell them whether upon those terms God had or would pardon them in the present disposition 27. For after great crimes the state of a sinner is very deplorable by reason of his uncertain pardon not that it is uncertain whether God will pardon the truly penitent but that it is uncertain who is so and all the ingredients into the judgment that is to be made are such things which men cannot well discern they cannot tell in what measures God will exact the Repentance what sorrow is sufficient what fruits acceptable what is expiatory and what rejected according to the saying of Solomon Who can say I have made my heart clean I am pure from my sin they cannot tell how long God will forbear at what time his anger is final and when he will refuse to hear or what aggravations of the crime God looks on nor can they make an estimate which is greater the example of the sin or the example of the punishment And therefore in such great cases the Church had reason to refuse to give pardon which she could minister neither certainly nor prudently nor as the case then stood safely or piously 28. But yet she enjoyn'd Penances that is all the solemnities of Repentance and to them the sinners stood bound in Earth and consequently in Heaven according to the words of our blessed Saviour but she bound them no further She intended charity and relief to them not ruine and death eternal On this she had no direct power and if the penitent were obedient to her Discipline then neither could they be prejudic'd by her indirect power she sent them to God for pardon and made them to prepare themselves accordingly Her injunction of Penances was medicinal and her refusing to admit them to the Communion was an act of caution fitted to the present necessities of the Church Nonnullae ideò poscunt poenitentiam ut statim sibi reddi communionem velint Hae non tam se solvere cupiunt quà m sacerdotem ligare Some demand penances that they may have speedy communion These do not so much desire themselves to be loosed as to have the Priest bound that is such hasty proceedings do not any good to the penitent but much hurt to him that ministers This the Primitive Church avoided and this was the whole effect which that Discipline had upon the souls of the penitents But for their Doctrine S. Austin is a sufficient witness Sed neque de ipsis â—riminibus quamlibet magnis remittendis in Sanctâ Ecclesiâ Dei desperanda est misericordia agentibus poenitentiam secundum modum sui cujusque peccati They ought not to despair of Gods mercy even to the greatest sinners if they be the greatest penitents that is if they repent according to the measure of their sins Only in the making their judgments concerning the measures of Repentance they differ'd from our practices Ecclesiastical Repentance and Absolution was not only an exercise of the duty and an assisting of the penitent in his return but it was also a warranting or ensuring the pardon which because in many cases the Church could not so well do she did better in not undertaking it that is in not pronouncing Absolution 29. For the pardon of sins committed after Baptism not being described in full measures and though it be sufficiently signifi'd that any sin may be pardon'd yet it not being told upon what conditions this or that great one shall the Church did well and warily not to be too forward for as S. Paul said I am conscious to my self in nothing yet I am not hereby justified so we may say in Repentance I have repented and do so but I am not hereby justified because that is a secret which until the day of Judgment we shall not understand for every repenting is not sufficient He that repents worthily let his sin be what it will shall certainly be pardon'd but after great crimes who does repent worthily is a matter of harder judgment than the manners of the present age will allow us to make and so secret that they thought it not amiss very often to be backward in pronouncing the Criminal absolved 30. But then all this whole affair must needs be a mighty arrest to
the gayeties of this sinful age For although Christs blood can expiate all sins and his Spirit can sanctifie all sinners and his Church can restore all that are capable yet if we consider that the particulars of every naughty mans case are infinitely uncertain that there are no minute-measures of repentance set down after Baptism that there are some states of sinners which God does reject that the arrival to this state is by parts and undetermin'd steps of progression that no man can tell when any sin begins to be unpardonable to such a person and that if we be careless of our selves and easie in our judgments and comply with the false measures of any age we may be in before we are aware and cannot come out so soon as we expect and lastly if we consider that the Primitive and Apostolical Churches who best knew how to estimate the mercies of the Gospel and the requisites of repentance and the malignity and dangers of sin did not promise pardon so easily so readily so quickly as we do we may think it fit to be more afraid and more contrite more watchful and more severe 31. I end this with the words of S. Hierome Cùm beatus Daniel praescius futurorum de sententiâ Dei dubitet rem temerariam faciunt qui audacter peccatoribus indulgentiam pollicentur Though Daniel could foretel future things yet he durst not pronounce concerning the King whether God would pardon him or no it is therefore a great rashness boldly to promise pardon to them that have sinned That is it is not to be done suddenly according to the caution which S. Paul gave to the Bishop of Ephesus Lay hands suddenly on no man that is absolve him not without great trial and just dispositions 32. For though this be not at all to be wrested to a suspicion that the sins in their kind are not pardonable yet thus far I shall make use of it That God who only hath the power he only can make the judgment whether the sinner be a worthy penitent or not For there being no express stipulation made concerning the degrees of repentance no taxa poenitentiaria penitential Tables and Canons consign'd by God it cannot be told by man when after great sins and a long iniquity the unhappy man shall be restor'd because it wholly depends upon the Divine acceptance 33. In smaller offences and the seldom returns of sin intervening in a good or a probable life the Curates of souls may make safe and prudent judgments But when the case is high and the sin is clamorous or scandalous or habitual they ought not to be too easie in speaking peace to such persons to whom God hath so fiercely threatned death eternal But to hold their hands may possibly increase the sorrow and contrition and fear of the penitent and returning man and by that means make him the surer of it But it is too great a confidence and presumption to dispense Gods pardon or the Kings upon easie terms and without their Commission 34. For since all the rule and measures of dispensing it is by analogies and proportions by some reason and much conjecture it were better by being restrain'd in the Ministeries of favour to produce fears and watchfulness carefulness and godly sorrow than by an open hand to make sinners bold and many confident and easie Those holy and wise men who were our Fathers in Christ did well weigh the dangers into which a sinning man had entred and did dreadfully fear the issues of the Divine anger and therefore although they openly taught that God hath set open the gates of mercy to all worthy penitents yet concerning repentance they had other thoughts than we have and that in the pardon of sinners there are many more things to be considered besides the possibility of having the sin pardoned SECT IV. Of the Sin against the Holy Ghost and in what sence it is or may be Vnpardonable 35. UPON what account the Primitive Church did refuse to admit certain Criminals to repentance I have already discoursed but because there are some places of Scripture which seem to have incouraged such severity by denying repentance also to some sinners it is necessary that they be considered also lest by being misunderstood some persons in the days of their sorrow be tempted to despair 36. The Novatians denying repentance to lapsed Christians pretended for their warrant those words of S. Paul It is impossible for those who were once inlightened and have tasted of the Heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come if they shall fall away to renew them again unto repentance seeing they crucifie to themselves the son of God afresh and put him to an open shame and parallel to this are those other words For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall consume the adversaries The sence of which words will be clear upon the explicating what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 37. If they shall fall away viz. from that state of excellent things in which they had received all the present endearments of the Gospel a full conviction pardon of sins the earnest of the Spirit the comfort of the promises an antepast of Heaven it self if these men shall fall away from all this it cannot be by infirmity by ignorance by surprise this is that which S. Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sin wilfully after they have received the knowledge of the truth Malicious sinners these are who sin against the Holy Spirit whose influences they throw away whose counsels they despise whose comforts they refuse whose doctrine they scorn and from thence fall not only into one single wasting sin but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they fall away into a contrary state into Heathenism or the heresie of the Gnosticks or to any state of despising and hating Christ expressed here by Crucifying the Son of God afresh and putting him to an open shame these are they here meant such who after they had worshipped Jesus and given up their names to him and had been blessed by him and felt it and acknowledged it and rejoyc'd in it these men afterwards without cause or excuse without error or infirmity chusingly willingly knowingly call'd Christ an Impostor and would have crucified him again if he had been alive that is they consented to his death by believing that he suffer'd justly This is the case here described and cannot be drawn to any thing else but its parallel that is a malicious renouncing charity or holy life as these men did the faith to both which they had made their solemn vows in Baptism but this can no way be
drawn to the condemnation and final excision of such persons who after baptism fall into any great sin of which they are willing to repent 38. There is also something peculiar in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 renewing such men to repentance that is these men are not to be redintegrate and put into the former condition they cannot be restored to any other gracious Covenant of repentance since they have despis'd this Other persons who hold fast their profession and forget not that they were cleansed in baptism they in case they do fall into sin may proceed in the same method in their first renovation to repentance that is in their being solemnly admitted to the method and state of repentance for all sins known and unknown But when this renovation is renounc'd when they despise the whole Oeconomy when they reject this grace and throw away the Covenant there is nothing left for such but a fearful looking for of judgment for these persons are incapable of the mercies of the Gospel they are out of the way For there being but one way of salvation viz. by Jesus Christ whom they renounce neither Moses nor Nature nor any other name can restore them And 2. Their case is so bad and they so impious and malicious that no man hath power to perswade such men to accept of pardon by those means which they so disown For there is no means of salvation but this one and this one they hate and will not have they will not return to the old and there is none left by which they can be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 renewed and therefore their condition is desperate 39. But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or impossible is also of special importance and consideration It is impossible to renew such For impossible is not to be understood in the natural sence but in the legal and moral There are degrees of impossibility and therefore they are not all absolute and supreme So when the law hath condemned a criminal we usually say it is impossible for him to escape meaning that the law is clearly against him Magnus ab infernis revocetur Tulliâ—s umbris Et te defendat Regulus ipse licèt Non potes absolvi That is your cause is lost you are inexcusable there is no apology no pleading for you and that the same is here meant we understand by those parallel words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is left no sacrifice for him alluding to Moses's law in which for them that sinn'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a high hand for them that despised Moses's law there was no sacrifice appointed which Ben Maimon expounds saying that for Apostates there was no sacrifice in the Law So that it is impossible to renew such means that it is ordinarily impossible we have in the discipline of the Church no door of reconciliation If he repents of this he is not the same man but if he remains so the Church hath no promise to be heard if she prays for him which is the last thing that the Church can do To absolve him is to warrant him that in this case is absolutely impossible but to pray for him is to put him into some hopes and for that she hath in this case no commission For this is the sin unto death of which S. John speaks and gives no incouragement to pray So that impossible does signifie in sensu forensi a state of sin which is sentenc'd by the Law to be capital and damning but here it signifies the highest degree of that deadliness and impossibility as there are degrees of malignity and desperation in mortal diseases for of all evils this state here described is the worst And therefore here is an impossibility 40. But besides all other sences of this word it is certain by the whole frame of the place and the very analogy of the Gospel that this impossibility here mentioned is not an impossibility of the thing but only relative to the person It is impossible to restore him whose state of evil is contrary to pardon and restitution as being a renouncing the Gospel that is the whole Covenant of pardon and repentance Such is that parallel expression used by S. John He that is born of God sinneth not neither indeed can he that is it is impossible he cannot sin for the seed of God remaineth in him Now this does not signifie that a good man cannot possibly sin if he would that is it does not signifie a natural or an absolute impossibility but such as relates to the present state and condition of the person being contrary to sin the same with that of S. Paul Be ye led by the Spirit for the spirit lusteth against the flesh so that ye cannot do the things which ye would viz. which the flesh would fain tempt you to A good man cannot sin that is very hardly can he be brought to chuse or to delight in it he cannot sin without a horrible trouble and uneasiness to himself so on the other side such Apostates as the Apostle speaks of cannot be renewed that is without extreme difficulty and a perfect contradiction to that state in which they are for the present lost But if this man will repent with a repentance proportion'd to that evil which he hath committed that he ought not to despair of pardon in the Court of Heaven we have the affirmation of Justin Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They that confess and acknowledge him to be Christ and for whatsoever cause go from him to the secular conversation viz. to Heathenism or Judaism c. denying that he is Christ and not confessing him again before their death they can never be saved So that this impossibility concerns not those that return and do confess him but those that wilfully and maliciously reject this only way of salvation as false and deceitful and never return to the confession of it again which is the greatest sin against the Holy Ghost of which I am in the next place to give a more particular account SECT V. 41. HE that speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall never be forgiven him in this world nor in the world to come so said our blessed Saviour Origen and the Novatians after him when the Scholars of Novatus to justifie their Masters Schism from the Church had chang'd the good old discipline into a new and evil doctrine said that all the sins of Christians committed after Baptism are sins against the Holy Ghost by whom in Baptism they have been illuminated and by him they were taught in the Gospel and by him they were consign'd in confirmation and promoted in all the assistances and Conduct of grace and they gave this reason for it Because the Father is in all Creatures the Son only in the Reasonable and the Holy Spirit in Christians against which if they prevaricate they shall not be pardon'd while the sins of Heathens as being only against
gone that they would not return and God did not and at last would not pardon them For this appellative is not properly subjected nor attributed to the sin it self but it is according as the man is The sin may be and is at some time unpardonable yet not in all its measures and parts of progression as appears in the case of Pharaoh who all the way from the first miracle to the tenth sinn'd against the Holy Ghost but at last he was so bad that God would not pardon him Some men are come to the greatness of the sin or to that state and grandeur of impiety that their estate is desperate that is though the nature of their sins is such as God is extremely angry with them and would destroy them utterly were he not restrain'd by an infinite mercy yet it shall not be thus for ever for in some state of circumstances and degrees God is finally angry with the man and will never return to him 49. Until things be come to this height whatsoever the sin be it is pardonable For if there were any one sin distinguishable in its whole nature and instance from others which in every of its periods were unpardonable it is most certain it would have been described in Scripture with clear characters and cautions that a man might know when he is in and when he is out Speaking a word against the Holy Spirit is by our blessed Saviour called this great sin but it is certain that every word spoken against him is not unpardonable Simon Magus spoke a foul word against him but S. Peter did not say it was unpardonable but when he bid him pray he consequently bid him hope but because he would not warrant him that is durst not absolve him he sufficiently declared that this sin is of an indefinite nature and by growth would arrive at the unpardonable state the state and fulness of it is unpardonable that is God will to some men and in some times and stages of their evil life be so angry that he will give them over and leave them in their reprobate mind But no man knows when that time is God only knows and the event must declare it 50. But for the thing it self that it is pardonable is very certain because it may be pardoned in baptism The Novatians denied not to baptism a power of pardoning any sin and in this sence it is without doubt true what Zosimus by way of reproach objected to Christian Religion it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a deletery and purgative for every sin whatsoever And since the unconverted Pharisees were guilty of this sin and it was a sin forbidden and punished capitally in the law of Moses either to these Christ could not have been preached and for them Christ did not die or else it is certain that the sin against the holy Spirit of God is pardonable 51. Now whereas our Blessed Lord affirmed of this sin it shall not be pardoned in this world nor in the world to come we may best understand the meaning of it by the parallel words of old Heli to his sons If a man sin against another the Judge shall judge him placari ei potest Deus so the Vulgar Latin reads it God may be appeased that is it shall be forgiven him that is a word spoken against the Son of man which relates to Christ only upon the account of his humane nature that may be forgiven him it shall that is upon easier terms as upon a temporal judgment called in this place a being judged by the Judge But if a man sin against the Lord who shall intreat for him that is if he sin with a high hand presumptuously against the Lord against his power and his Spirit who shall intreat for him it shall never be pardoned never so as the other never upon a temporal judgment that cannot expiate this great sin as it could take off a sin against a man or the Son of man for though it be punished here it shall be punished hereafter But 52. II. It shall not be pardoned in this world nor in the world to come that is neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles For Saeculum hoc this World in Scripture is the period of the Jews Synagogue and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the world to come is taken for the Gospel or the age of the Messias frequently among the Jews and it is not unlikely Christ might mean it in that sence which was used amongst them by whom he would be understood But because the word was also as commonly used in that sence in which it is understood at this day viz. for the world after this life I shall therefore propound another exposition which seems to me more probable Though remission of sins is more plentiful in the Gospel than under the Law yet because the sin is bigger under the Gospel there is not here any ordinary way of pardoning it no Ministery established to warrant or absolve such sinners but it must be referred to God himself and yet that 's not all For if a man perseveres in this sin he shall neither be forgiven here nor hereafter that is neither can he be absolved in this world by the ministery of the Church nor in the world to come by the sentence of Christ and this I take to be the full meaning of this so difficult place 53. For in this world properly so speaking there is no forgiveness of sins but what is by the ministery of the Church For then a sin is forgiven when it is pardon'd in the day of sentence or execution that is when those evils are removed which are usually inflicted or which are proper to that day Now then for the final punishment that is not till the day of judgment and if God then gives us a mercy in that day then is the day of our pardon from him In the mean time if he be gracious to us here he either forbears to smite us or smites us to bring us to repentance and all the way continues to us the use of the Word and Sacraments that is if he does in any sence pardon us here if he does not give us over to a reprobate mind he continues us under the means of salvation which is the ministery of the Church for that 's the way of pardon in this World as the blessed sentence of the right hand is the way of pardon in the World to come So that when our great Lord and Master threatens to this sin it shall not be pardon'd in this World nor in the World to come he means that neither shall the Ministers of the Church pronounce his pardon or comfort his sorrows or restore him after his fall or warrant his condition or pray for him publickly or give him the peace and communion of the Church neither will God pardon him in the day of Judgment 54. But all this fearful denunciation of the Divine judgment is only upon
sins are pardon'd by those ways and instruments which God hath constituted in the Church and there are no other external rites appointed by Christ but the Sacraments it follows that as they are worthily communicated or justly denied so the pardon is or is not ministred And therefore when the Church did bind any sinner by the bands of Discipline she did remove him from the mysteries and sometimes enjoyn'd external or internal acts of repentance to testifie and to exercise the grace and so to dispose them to pardon and when the penitents had given such testimonies which the Church demanded then they were absolved that is they were admitted to the mysteries For in the Primitive records of the Church there was no form of absolution judicial nothing but giving them the holy Communion admitting them to the peace of the Church to the society and priviledges of the faithful For this was giving them pardon by vertue of those words of Christ Whose sins ye remit they are remitted that is if ye who are the Stewards of my family shall admit any one to the Kingdom of Christ on Earth they shall be admitted to the participation of Christs Kingdom in Heaven and what ye bind here shall be bound there that is if they be unworthy to partake of Christ here they shall be accounted unworthy to partake of Christ hereafter if they separate from Christs members they also shall be separate from the head and this is the full sence of the power given by Christ to his Church concerning sins and sinners called by S. Paul The word of reconciliation For as for the other later and superinduc'd Ministery of pardon in judicial forms of absolution that is wholly upon other accounts of good use indeed to all them that desire it by reason of their present perswasions and scruples fears and jealousies concerning the event of things For sometimes it happens what one said of old Mens nostra difficillimè sedatur Deus faciliús God is sooner at peace with us than we are at peace with our own minds and because our repentances are always imperfect and he who repents the most excellently and hates his sin with the greatest detestation may possibly by his sence of the foulness of his sin undervalue his repentance and suspect his sorrow and because every thing is too little to deserve pardon he may think it is too little to obtain it and the man may be melancholy and melancholy is fearful and fear is scrupulous and scruples are not to be satisfied at home and not very easily abroad in the midst of these and many other disadvantages it will be necessary that he whose office it is to separate the vile from the precious and to judge of leprosie should be made able to judge of the state of this mans repentance and upon notice of particulars to speak comfort to him or some thing for institution For then if the Minister of holy things shall think fit to pronounce absolution that is to declare that he believes him to be a true penitent and in the state of grace it must needs add much comfort to him and hope of pardon not only upon the confidence of his wisdom and spiritual learning but even from the prayers of the holy man and the solemnity of his ministration To pronounce absolution in this case is to warrant him so far as his case is warrantable That is to speak comfort to him that is in need to give sentence in a case which is laid before him in which the party interested either hath no skill or no confidence or no comfort Now in this case to dispute whether the Priest power be Judicial or Optative or Declarative is so wholly to no purpose that this sentence is no part of any power at all but it is his office to do it and is an effect of wisdom not of power it is like the answering of a question which indeed ought to be askt of him as every man prudently is to inquire in every matter of concernment from him who is skill'd and experienced and profest in the faculty But the Priests proper power of absolving that is of pardoning which is in no case communicable to any man who is not consecrated to the Ministery is a giving the penitent the means of eternal pardon the admitting him to the Sacraments of the Church and the peace and communion of the faithful because that is the only way really to obtain pardon of God there being in ordinary no way to Heaven but by serving God in the way which he hath commanded us by his Son that is in the way of the Church which is his body whereof he is Prince and Head The Priest is the Minister of holy things he does that by his Ministery which God effects by real dispensation and as he gives the Spirit not by authority and proper efflux but by assisting and dispensing those rites and promoting those graces which are certain dispositions to the receiving of him just so he gives pardon not as a King does it nor yet as a Messenger that is not by way of authority and real donation nor yet only by declaration but as a Physician gives health that is he gives the remedy which God appoints and if he does so and if God blesses the medicines the person recovers and God gives the health 52. For it is certain that the holy man who ministers in repentance hath no other proper power of giving pardon than what is now described Because he cannot pardon them who are not truly penitent and if the sinner be God will pardon him whether the Priest does or no and what can be the effect of these things but this that the Priest does only minister to the pardon as he ministers to repentance He tells us upon what conditions God does pardon and judges best when the conditions are performed and sets forward those conditions by his proper ministery and ministers to us the instruments of grace but first takes accounts of our souls and helps us who are otherwise too partial to judge severe and righteous judgment concerning our eternal interest and he judges for us and does exhort or reprove admonish or correct comfort or humble loose or bind So the Minister of God is the Minister of reconciliation that is he is the Minister of the Gospel for that is the Word of Reconciliation which S. Paul affirms to be intrusted to him in every office by which the holy man ministers to the Gospel in every of them he is the Minister of pardon 53. But concerning that which we call Absolution that is a pronouncing the person to be absolved it is certain that the forms of the present use were not used for many ages of the Church In the Greek Church they were never used and for the Latin Church in Thomas Aquinas his time they were so new that he put it into one of his Quaestiones disputatae whether form were more fit the Optative
reconciling of penitents in the Primitive Church was not done by the Bishop or Priest only but sometimes by Deacons as appears in Saint Cyprian and sometimes by the people as it was allowed by S. Paul in the case of the incestuous Corinthian and was frequently permitted to the Confessori in the times of persecution and may be done by an unbaptized Catechumen as S. Austin affirms The result of which is that this absolution of penitents in the Court Christian was not an act of Priestly power incommunicably it was not a dispensation of the proper power of the Keys but to give or not to give the Communion that was an effect of the power of the Keys that was really properly and in effect the Ecclesiastical absolution for that which the Deacons or Confessors the Laicks or Catechumens did was all that and only that which was of rite or ceremony before the giving the Communion therefore that which was besides this giving the Communion was no proper absolution it was not a Priestly act indispensably it might be done by them that were no Priests but the giving of the Communion that was a sacerdotal act I mean the consecration of it though the tradition of it was sometimes by Deacons sometimes by themselves at home This therefore was the dispensation of the Keys this was the effect of the powers of binding and loosing of remitting or retaining sins according as the sence and practice of the Church expounded her own power The prayers of the Priest going before his ministration of the Communion were called absolution that is the beginning and one of the first portions of it absolutio Sacerdotalium precum so it was called in ancient Councils the Priest imposed hands and prayed and then gave the Communion This was the ordinary way But there was an extraordinary 55. For in some cases the imposition of hands was omitted that is when the Bishop or Priest was absent and the Deacon prayed or the Confessor but this was first by the leave of the Bishop or Priest for to them it belong'd in ordinary And 2. this was nothing else but a taking them from the station of the penitents and a placing them amongst the faithful communicants either by declaring that their penances were performed or not to be exacted 56. For by this we shall be clear of an objection which might arise from the case of dying penitents to whom the Communion was given and they restored to the peace of the Church that is as they supposed to Gods mercy and the pardon of sins for they would not chuse to give the Communion to such persons whom they did not believe God had pardoned but these persons though communicated non tamen se credant absolutos sine manus impositione si supervixerint were not to suppose themselves absolved if they recovered that sickness without imposition of hands said the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Carthage by which it should seem absolution was a thing distinct from giving the Communion 57. To this I answer that the dying penitent was fully absolved in case he had receiv'd the first imposition of hands for repentance that is if in his health he submitted himself to penance and publick amends and was prevented from finishing the impositions they supposed that desire and endeavour of the penitent man was a worthy disposition to the receiving the holy Communion and both together sufficient for pardon but because this was only to be in the case of such intervening necessity and God will not accept of the will for the deed but in such cases where the deed cannot be accomplished therefore they bound such penitents to return to their first obligation in case they should recover since God had taken off their necessity and restored them to their first capacity And by this we understand the meaning of the third Canon of the first Arausican Council They who having received penance depart from the body it pleases that they shall be communicated sine reconciliatoriâ manus impositione without the reconciling imposition of hands that is because the penitential imposition of hands was imposed upon them and they did what they could though the last imposition was not though the last hand was not put upon them declaring that they had done their penances and completed their satisfactions yet they might be communicated that is absolved Quod morientis sufficit consolationi This is enough to the comfort of the dying man according to the definition of the Fathers who conveniently enough called such a Communion their Viaticum their Passe-port or provision for their way For there were two solemn impositions of hands in repentance The first and greatest was in the first admission of them and in the imposition of the Discipline or manner of performing penances and this was the Bishops office and of great consideration amongst the holy Primitives and was never done but by the superior Clergy as is evident in Ecclesiastical story The second solemn imposition of hands was immediately before their absolution or Communion and it was a holy prayer and publication that he was accepted and had finished that processe This was the less solemn and was ordinarily done by the superior Clergy but sometimes by others as I have remonstrated other intermedial impositions there were as appears by the Creber recursus mentioned in the third Council of Toledo above cited the penitents were often to beg the Bishops pardon or the Priests prayers and the advocations and intercessions of the faithful but the peace of the Church that is that pardon which she could minister and which she had a promise that God would confirm in Heaven was the Ministery of pardon in the dispensation of the Sacrament of that body that was broken and that blood that was poured forth for the remission of our sins 58. The result is That the absolution of sins which in the later forms and usages of the Church is introduced can be nothing but declarative the office of the preacher and the guide of souls of great use to timorous persons and to the greatest penitents full of comfort full of usefulness and institution and therefore although this very declaration of pardon may truly and according to the style of Scripture be called pardon and the power and office of pronouncing the penitents pardon is in the sence of the Scripture and the Church a good sence and signification of power as the Pharisees are said â—o justifie God when they declare his justice and as the preacher that converts a sinner is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to save a soul from death yet if we would speak properly and as things are in their own nature and institution this declarative absolution is only an act of preaching or opening and reading the Commission an effect of the Spirit of prudence and government entring upon the Church but the power of the Keys is another thing it is the dispensing all those rites and ministeries by
does but declare it so it effects it not 71. VIII And after all it is certain that the words of absolution effect no more than they signifie If therefore they do pardon the sin yet they do not naturally change the disposition or the real habit of the sinner And if the words can effect more they may be changed to signifie what they do effect for to signifie is less than to effect Can therefore the Church use this form of absolution I do by the power committed unto me change thy Attrition into Contrition The answer to this is not yet made for their pretence is so new and so wholly unexamined that they have not yet considered any thing of it It will therefore suffice for our institution in this useful material and practical question that no such words were instituted by Christ nor any thing like them no such were used by the Primitive Church no such power pretended And as this new doctrine of the Roman Church contains in it huge estrangements and distances from the spirit of Christianity is another kind of thing than the doctrine and practice of the Apostolical and succeeding ages of the Church did publish or exercise so it is a perfect destruction to the necessity of holy life it is a device only to advance the Priests office and to depress the necessity of holy dispositions it is a trick to make the graces of Gods holy Spirit to be bought and sold and that a man may at a price become holy in an instant just as if a Teacher of Musick should undertake to convey skill to his Scholar and fell the art and transmit it in an hour it is a device to make dispositions by art and in effect requires little or nothing of duty to God so they pay regard to the Priest But I shall need to oppose no more against it but those excellent words and pious meditation of Salvian Non levi agendum est contritione ut debita illa redimantur quibus mors aeterna debetur nec transitoriâ opus est satisfactione pro malis illis propter quae paratus est ignis aeternus It is not a light contrition by which those debts can be redeem'd to which eternal death is due neither can a transitory satisfaction serve for those evils for which God hath prepared the vengeance of eternal fire SECT VI. Of Penances or Satisfactions 72. IN the Primitive Church the word Satisfaction was the whole word for all the parts and exercises of repentance according to those words of Lactantius Poenitentiam proposuit ut si peccata nostra confessi Deo satisfecerimus veniam consequamur He propounded repentance that if we confessing our sins to God make amends or satisfaction we may obtain pardon Where it is evident that Satisfaction does not signifie in the modern sence of the word a full payment to the Divine Justice but by the exercises of repentance a deprecation of our fault and a begging pardon Satisfaction and pardon are not consistent if satisfaction signifie rigorously When the whole debt is paid there is nothing to be forgiven The Bishops and Priests in the Primitive Church would never give pardon till their satisfactions were performed To confess their sins to be sorrowful for them to express their sorrow to punish the guilty person to do actions contrary to their former sins this was their amends or Satisfaction and this ought to be ours So we find the word used in best Classick Authors So Plautus brings in Alcmena angry with Amphitruo Quin ego illum aut deseram Aut satisfaciat mihi atque adjuret insuper Nolle esse dicta quae in me insontem protulit i. e. I will leave him unless he give me satisfaction and swear that he wishes that to be unsaid which he spake against my innocence for that was the form of giving satisfaction to wish it undone or unspoken and to add an oath that they believe the person did not deserve that wrong as we find it in Terence Adelph Ego vestra haec novi nollem factum jusjurandum dabitur esse te indignum injuriâ hâc Concerning which who please to see more testimonies of the true sence and use of the word Satisfactions may please to look upon Lambinus in Plauti Amphitr and Laevinus Torrentius upon Suetonius in Julio Exomologesis or Confession was the word which as I noted formerly was of most frequent use in the Church Si de exomologesi retractas gehennam in corde considera quam tibi exomologesis extinguet He that retracts his sins by confessing and condemning them extinguishes the flames of Hell So Tertullian The same with that of S. Cyprian Deo patri misericordi precibus operibus suis satisfacere possunt They may satisfie God our Father and merciful by prayers and good works that is they may by these deprecate their fault and obtain mercy and pardon for their sins Peccatum suum satisfactione humili simplici confitentes So Cyprian confessing their sins with humble and simple satisfaction plainly intimating that Confession or Exomologesis was the same with that which they called Satisfaction And both of them were nothing but the publick exercise of repentance according to the present usages of their Churches as appears evidently in those words of Gennadius Poenitentiae satisfactionem esse causas peccatorum exscindere nec eorum suggestionibus aditum indulgere To cut off the causes of sins and no more to entertain their whispers and temptations is the satisfaction of repentance and like this is that of Lactantius Potest reduci liberari si eum poeniteat actorum ad meliora conversus satisfaciat Deo The sinner may be brought back and freed if he repents of what is done and satisfies or makes amends to God by being turned to better courses And the whole process of this is well described by Tertullian Exomologesis est quâ delictum Domino nostrum confitemur non quidem ut ignaro sed quatenus satisfactio confessione disponitur confessione poenitentia nascitur penitentiâ Deus mitigatur we must confess our sins to God not as if he did not know them already but because our satisfaction is dispos'd and order'd by confession by confession our repentance hath birth and production and by repentance God is appeased 73. Things being thus we need not immerge our selves in the trifling controversies of our later Schools about the just value of every work and how much every penance weighs and whether God is so satisfied with our penal works that in justice he must take off so much as we put on and is tied also to take our accounts Certain it is if God should weigh our sins with the same value as we weigh our own good works all our actions and sufferings would be found infinitely too light in the balance Therefore it were better that we should do what we can and humbly beg of God to weigh them both with vast allowances of
Rom. 5.12 As by one man sin entred into the world and Death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned i. e. As by the disobedience of Adam sin had its beginning and by sin death that is the sentence and preparations the solennities and addresses of death sickness calamity dâ—â—inution of strengths Old age misfortunes and all the affections of Mortality for the destroying of our temporal life and so this mortality and condition or state of death passed actually upon all mankind for Adam being thrown out of Paradise and forced to live with his Children where they had no Trees of Life as he had in Paradise was remanded to his mortal natural state and therefore death passed upon them mortally seized on all for that all have sinned that is the sin was reckoned to all not to make them guilty like Adam but Adams sin passed upon all imprinting this real calamity on us all But yet death descended also upon Adams Posterity for their own sins for since all did sin all should die But some Greek copies leave out the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which indeed seems superfluous and of no signification but then the sence is cleareâ— and the following words are the second part of a similitude As by one man sin entred into the world and death by sin So death passed upon all men for that all have sinned But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies neutrally And the meaning is As Adam died in his own sin So death passed upon all men for their own sin in the sin which they sinned in that sin they died As it did at first to Adam by whom sin first entred and by sin death so death passed upon all men upon whom sin passed that is in the same method they who did sin should die But then he does not seem to say that all did sin for he presently subjoyns that death reigned even upon those who did not sin after the similitude of Adams transgression but this was upon another account as appears in the following words But others expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie masculinely and to relate to Adam viz. that in him we all sinned Now although this is less consonant to the mind of the Apostle and is harsh and improper both in the language and in the sence yet if it were so it could mean but this that the sin of Adam was of Universal obligation and in him we are reckoned as sinners obnoxious to his sentence for by his sin humane Nature was reduced to its own mortality 13. For until the law sin was in the World but sin is not imputed where there is no law And marvel not that Death did presently descend on all mankind even before a Law was given them with an appendant penalty viz. With the express intermination of death For they did do actions unnatural and vile enough but yet these things which afterwards upon the publication of the Law were imputed to them upon their personal account even unto death were not yet so imputed For Nature alone gives Rules but does not directly bind to penalties But death came upon them before the Law for Adams sin for with him God being angry was pleased to curse him also in his Posterity and leave them also in their mere natural condition to which yet they disposed themselves and had deserved but too much by committing evil things to which things although before the law death was not threatned yet for the anger which God had against mankind he left that death which he threatned to Adam expresly by implication to fall upon the Posterity 14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression who is the figure of him which was to come And therefore it was that death reigned from Adam to Moses from the first law to the second from the time that a Law was given to one man till the time a Law was given to one Nation and although men had not sinned so grievously as Adam did who had no excuse many helps excellent endowments mighty advantages trifling temptations communication with God himself no disorder in his faculties free will perfect immunity from violence Original righteousness perfect power over his faculties yet those men such as Abel and Seth Noah and Abraham Isaac and Jacob Joseph and Benjamin who sinned less and in the midst of all their disadvantages were left to fall under the same sentence But it is to be observed that these words even over them that had not sinned according to some Interpretations are to be put into a Parenthesis and the following words after the similitude of Adams transgression are an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to be referred to the first words thus Death reigned from Adam to Moses after the similitude of Adams transgression that is as it was at first so it was afterwards death reigned upon men who had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression that is like as it did in the transgression of Adam so it did afterward they in their innocence died as Adam did in his sin and prevarication and this was in the similitude of Adam As they who obtain salvation obtain it in the similitude of Christ or by a conformity to Christ so they 〈◊〉 die do die in the likeness of Adam Christ and Adam being the two representatives of mankind For this besides that it was the present Oeconomy of the Divine Providence and Government it did also like Janus look 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it looked forwards as well as backwards and became a type of Christ or of him that was to come For as from Adam evil did descend upon his natural Children upon the account of Gods entercourse with Adam so did good descend upon the spiritual Children of the second Adam 15. But not as the offence so also is the free gift for if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many This should have been the latter part of a similitude but upon further consideration it is found that as in Adam we die so in Christ we live and much rather and much more therefore I cannot say as by one man vers 12. so by one man vers 15. But much more for not as the offence so also is the free gift for the offence of one did run over unto many and those many even as it were all except Enoch or some very few more of whom mention peradventure is not made are already dead upon that account but when God comes by Jesus Christ to shew mercy to mankind he does it in much more abundance he may be angry to the third and fourth generation in them that hate him but he will shew mercy unto thousands of them that love him to a thousand generations and in ten thousand degrees
brought death into the world That it was his sin alone that did the great mischief That this sin was made ours 〈◊〉 by inherence but by imputation That they who suffered the calamity did not know what the sin was That there was a difference of men even in relation to thiâ— sin and it passed upon some more than upon others that is some were more miserable than others That some did not sin by that sin of Adam and some did that is some there were whose manners were not corrupted by that example and some were that it was not our sin but his that the sin did not multiply by the variety of subject but was still but one sin and that it was his and not ours all which particulars are as so many verifications of the doctrine I have delivered and so many illustrations of the main Article But in verification of one great part of it I mean that concerning Infants and that they are not corrupted properly or made sinners by any inherent impurity is clearly affirmed by S. Peter whose words are thus rendred in the same Aethiopick Testament 1 Pet. 2.2 And be ye like unto newly begotten Infants who are begotten every one without sin or malice and as milk not mingled And to the same sence those words of our Blessed Saviour to the Pharisees asking who sinn'd this man or his Parents John 9. the Syriack Scholiast does give this Paraphrase some say it is an indirect question For how is it possible for a man to sin before he was born And if his Parents sinn'd how could he bear their sin But if they say that the punishment of the Parents may be upon the Children let them know that this is spoken of them that came out of Egypt and is not Universal And those words of David In sin hath my Mother conceived me R. David Kimchi and Abeâ—esra say that they are expounded of Eve who did not conceive till she had sinned But to return to the words of S. Paul The consequent of this discourse must needs at least be this that it is impossible that the greatest part of mankind should be left in the eternal bonds of Hell by Adam for then quite contrary to the discourse of the Apostle there had been abundance of sin but a scarcity of grace and the access had been on the part of Adam not on the part of Christ against which he so mightily and artificially contends so that the Presbyterian way is perfectly condemned by this discourse of the Apostle and the other more gentle way which affirms that we were sentenced in Adam to eternal death though the execution is taken off by Christ is also no way countenanced by any thing in this Chapter for that the judgment which for Adams sin came unto the condemnation of the world was nothing but temporal death is here affirmed it being in no sence imaginable that the death which here S. Paul says passed upon all men and which reigned from Adam to Moses should be eternal death for the Apostle speaks of that death which was threatned to Adam and of such a death which was afterwards threatned in Moses's Law and such a death which fell even upon the most righteous of Adams posterity Abel and Seth and Methuselah that is upon them who did not sin after the similitude of Adams transgression Since then all the judgment which the Apostle says came by the sin of Adam was sufficiently and plainly enough affirmed to be death temporal that God should sentence mankind to eternal damnation for Adams sin though in goodness through Christ he afterwards took it off is not at all affirmed by the Apostle and because in proportion to the evil so was the imputation of the sin it follows that Adams sin is ours metonymically and improperly God was not finally angry with us nor had so much as any designs of eternal displeasure upon that account his anger went no further than the evils of this life and therefore the imputation was not of a proper guilt for that might justly have passed beyond our grave if the sin had passed beyond a metonymy or a juridical external imputation And of this God and Man have given this further testimony that as no man ever imposed penance for it so God himself in nature did never for it afflict or affright the Conscience and yet the Conscience never spares any man that is guilty of a known sin Extemplo quodcunque malum committitur ipsi Displicet Authori He that is guilty of a sin Shall rue the crime that he lies in And why the Conscience shall be for ever at so much peace for this sin that a man shall never give one groan for his share of guilt in Adams sin unless some or other scares him with an impertinent proposition why I say the Conscience should not naturally be afflicted for it nor so much as naturally know it I confess I cannot yet make any reasonable conjecture save this only that it is not properly a sin but only metonymically and improperly And indeed there are some whole Churches which think themselves so little concerned in the matter of Original sin that they have not a word of it in all their Theology I mean the Christians in the East-Indies concerning whom Frier Luys di Vrretta in his Ecclesiastical story of Aethiopia says That the Christians in Aethiopia under the Empire of Prestre Juan never kept the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary no so entremetieron en essas Theologias del peccato Original porque mâ—nca tuvieron los entendimientes muy metafisicos antes como gente afable benigna Llana de entendimientos conversables y alaguenos seguian la dotrina de los santos antiguos y de los sagrados Concilios sin disputas ni diferencias nor do they insert into their Theology any propositions concerning Original Sin nor trouble themselves with such Metaphysical contemplations but being of an affable ingenuous gentle comportment and understanding follow the Doctrine of the Primitive Saints and Holy Councils without disputation or difference so says the story But we unfortunately trouble our selves by raising Ideas of Sin and afflict our selves with our own dreams and will not believe but it is a vision And the height of this imagination hath wrought so high in the Church of Rome that when they would do great honours to the Virgin Mary they were pleased to allow to her an immaculate conception without any Original Sin and a Holy-day appointed for the celebration of the dream But the Christians in the other world are wiser and trouble themselves with none of these things but in simplicity honour the Divine attributes and speak nothing but what is easie to be understood And indeed Religion is then the best and the world will be sure to have fewer Atheists and fewer Blasphemers when the understandings of witty men are not tempted by commanding them to believe impossible Articles and unintelligible propositions when every thing is
this may be well suppos'd without inferring their suffering the pains of Hell But this sentence of theirs I admit and explicate with some little difference of expression For so far I admit this pain of loss or rather a deficiency from going to Heaven to be the consequence of Adam's sin that by it we being left in meris Naturalibus could never by these strengths alone have gone to Heaven Now whereas your Lordship in behalf of those whom you suppose may be captious is pleas'd to argue That as loss of sight or eyes infers a state of darkness or blindness so the loss of Heaven infers Hell and if Infants go not to Heaven in that state whither can they go but to Hell and that 's Damnation in the greatest sence I grant it that if in the event of things they do not go to Heaven as things are now ordered it is but too likely that they go to Hell but I add that as all darkness does not infer horror and distraction of mind or fearful apparitions and phantasms so neither does all Hell or states in Hell infer all those torments which the School-men signifie by a poenaseâ—sus for I speak now in pursuance of their way So that there is no necessity of a third place but it concludes only that in the state of separation from Gods presence there is a great variety of degrees and kinds of evil and every one is not the extreme and yet by the way let me observe that Gregory Nazianzen and Nicetas taught that there is a third place for Infants and Heathens and Irenaeus affirm'd that the evils of Hell were not eternal to all but to the Devils only and the greater criminals But neither they nor we nor any man else can tell whether Hell be a place or no. It is a state of evil but whether all the damned be in one or in twenty places we cannot tell But I have no need to make use of any of this For when I affirm that Infants being by Adam reduc'd and left to their mere natural state fall short of Heaven I do not say they cannot go to Heaven at all but they cannot go thither by their natural powers they cannot without a new grace and favour go to Heaven But then it cannot presently be inferred that therefore they go to Hell but this ought to be inferr'd which indeed was the real consequent of it therefore it is necessary that Gods Grace should supply this defect if God intends Heaven to them at all and because Nature cannot God sent a Saviour by whom it was effected But if it be asked what if this grace had not come and that it be said that without Gods grace they must have gone to Hell because without it they could not go to Heaven I answer That we know how it is now that God in his goodness hath made provisions for them but if he had not made such provisions what would have been we know not any more than we know what would have followed if Adam had not sinned where he should have liv'd and how long and in what circumstances the posterity should have been provided for in all their possible contingencies But yet this I know that it follows not that if without this Grace we could not have gone to Heaven that therefore we must have gone to Hell For although the first was ordinarily impossible yet the second was absolutely unjust and against Gods goodness and therefore more impossible But because the first could not be done by nature God was pleased to promise and to give his grace that he might bring us to that state whither he had designâ—d us that is to a supernatural felicity If Adam had not fallen yet Heaven had not been a natural consequent of his obedience but a Gracious it had been a gift still and of Adam though he had persisted in innocence it is true to say That without Gods Grace that is by the mere force of Nature he could never have arriv'd to a Supernatural state that is to the joys of Heaven and yet it does not follow that if he had remain'd in Innocence he must have gone to Hell Just so it is in Infants Hell was not made for man but for Devils and therefore it must be something besides mere Nature that can bear any man thither mere Nature goes neither to Heaven nor Hell So that when I say Infants naturally cannot go to Heaven and that this is a punishment of Adam's sin he being for it punished with a loss of his gracious condition and devolv'd to the state of Nature and we by him left so my meaning is that this Damnation which is of our Nature is but negative that is as a consequent of our Patrialous sin our Nature is left imperfect and deficient in order to a supernatural end which the School-men call a poena damni but improperly they indeed think it may be a real event and final condition of persons as well as things but I affirm it was an evil effect of Adam's sin but in the event of things it became to the persons the way to a new grace and hath no other event as to Heaven and Hell directly and immediately In the same sence and to the same purpose I understand the word Damnation in the Ninth Article But the word Damnation may very well truly and sufficiently signifie all the purposes of the Article if it be taken only for the effect of that sentence which was inflicted upon Adam and descended on his posterity that is for condemnation to Death and the evils of mortality So the word is used by S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.29 He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word but that it did particularly signifie temporal death and evils appears by the instances of probation in the next words For for this cause some are weak amongst you some are sick and some are fallen asleep This also in the Article Original Sin deserves damnation that is it justly brought in the angry sentence of God upon Man it brought him to death and deserv'd it it brought it upon us and deserv'd it too I do not say that we by that sin deserv'd that death neither can death be properly a punishment of us till we superadd some evil of our own yet Adam's sin deserv'd it so that it was justly left to fall upon us we as a consequent and punishment of his sin being reduc'd to our natural portion In odiosis quod minimum est sequimur The lesser sence of the word is certainly agreeable to truth and reason and it were good we us'd the word in that sence which may best warrant her doctrine especially for that use of the word having the precedent of Scripture I am confirm'd in this interpretation by the second Section of the Article viz. of the remanency of Concupiscence or Original Sin in the Regenerate All the sinfulness of
are fallible yet when they bring evidence of holy Writ their assertions are infallible and not to be contradicted I am bound to reply that when they do so whether they be infallible or no I will believe them because then though they might yet they are not deceived But as evidence of holy Writ had been sufficient without their authority so without such evidence their authority is nothing But then My Lord their citing and urging the words of S. Paul Rom. 5.12 is so far from being an evident probation of their Article that nothing is to me a surer argument of their fallibility than the urging of that which evidently makes nothing for them but much against them As 1. Affirming expresly that death was the event of Adam's sin the whole event for it names no other temporal death according to that saying of S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. In Adam we all die And 2. Affirming this process of death to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is and ought to be taken to be the allay or condition of the condemnation It became a punishment to them only who did sin but upon them also inflicted for Adam's sake A like expression to which is in the Psalms Psalm 106.32 33. They angred him also at the waters of strife so that he punished Moses for their sakes Here was plainly a traduction of evil from the Nation to Moses their relative For their sakes he was punished but yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as much as Moses had sinn'd for so it follows because they provoked his spirit so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips So it is between Adam and us He sinn'd and God was highly displeased This displeasure went further than upon Adam's sin for though that only was threatned with death yet the sins of his children which were not so threatned became so punished and they were by nature heirs of wrath and damnation that is for his sake our sins inherited his curse The curse that was specially and only threatned to him we when we sinn'd did inherit for his sake So that it is not so properly to be called Original Sin as an Original curse upon our sin To this purpose we have also another example of God transmitting the curse from one to another Both were sinners but one was the Original of the curse or punishment So said the Prophet to the wife of Jeroboam 1 Kings 14.16 He shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam who did sin and who made Israel to sin Jeroboam was the root of the sin and of the curse Here it was also that I may use the words of the Apostle that by the sin of one man Jeroboam sin went out into all Israel and the curse captivity or death by sin and so death went upon all men of Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men of Israel have sinned If these men had not sinned they had not been punished I cannot say they had not been afflicted for David's child was smitten for his fathers fault but though they did sin yet unless their root and principal had sinned possibly they should not have so been punished For his sake the punishment came Upon the same account it may be that we may inherit the damnation or curse for Adam's sake though we deserve it yet it being transmitted from Adam and not particularly threatned to the first posterity we were his heirs the heirs of death deriving from him an Original curse but due also if God so pleased to our sins And this is the full sence of the 12. verse and the effect of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But your Lordship is pleased to object that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does once signifie For as much as yet three times it signifies in or by To this I would be content to submit if the observation could be verified and be material when it were true But besides that it is so used in 2 Cor. 5.4 your Lordship may please to see it used as not only my self but indeed most men and particularly the Church of England does read it and expound it in Mat. 26.50 And yet if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same with in or by if it be rendred word for word yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice in the Scripture signifies for as much as as you may read Rom. 8.3 and Heb. 2.18 So that here are two places besides this in question and two more ex abundanti to shew that if it were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but said in words expresly as you would have it in the meaning yet even so neither the thing nor any part of the thing could be evicted against me and lastly if it were not only said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that that sence of it were admitted which is desired and that it did mean in or by in this very place yet the Question were not at all the nearer to be concluded against me For I grant that it is true in him we are all sinners as it is true that in him we all die that is for his sake we are us'd as sinners being miserable really but sinners in account and effect as I have largely discoursed in my book But then for the place here in question it is so certain that it signifies the same thing as our Church reads it that it is not sence without it but a violent breach of the period without precedent or reason And after all I have looked upon those places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said to signifie in or by and in one of them I find it so Mat. 2.4 but in Acts 3.16 and Phil. 1.3 I find it not at all in any sence but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed is used for in or by in that of the Acts and in the other it signifies at or upon but if all were granted that is pretended to it no way prejudices my cause as I have already proved Next to these your Lordship seems a little more zealous and decretory in the Question upon the confidence of the 17 18 and 19. Verses of the 5. Chapter to the Romans The summ of which as your Lordship most ingeniously summs it up is this As by one many were made sinners so by one many were made righteous that by Adam this by Christ. But by Christ we are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just not by imputation only but effectively and to real purposes therefore by Adam we are really made sinners And this your Lordship confirms by the observation of the sence of two words here used by the Apostle The first is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a sentence of guilt or punishment for sin and this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes because God punishes none but for their own sin Ezek. 18.2 From the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clear from sin so your Lordship renders
this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes I easily subscribe to it but then take in the words of S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one sin or by the sin of one the curse passed upon all men unto condemnation that is the curse descended from Adam for his sake it was propagated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a real condemnation viz. when they should sin For though this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the curse of death was threatned only to Adam yet upon Gods being angry with him God resolved it should descend and if men did sin as Adam or if they did sin at all though less than Adam yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the curse threatned to him should pass 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the same actual condemnation which fell upon him that is it should actually bring them under the reign of death But then my Lord I beseech you let it be considered if this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must suppose a punishment for sin for the sin of him his own sin that is so condemn'd as your Lordship proves perfectly out of Ezek. 18. how can it be just that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemnation should pass upon us for Adam's sin that is not for his own sin who is so condemn'd but for the sin of another S. Paul easily resolves the doubt if there had been any The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reign of death passed upon all men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men have sinned And now why shall we suppose that we must be guilty of what we did not when without any such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is so much guilt of what we did really and personally Why shall it be that we die only for Adam's sin and not rather as S. Paul expresly affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men have sinned since by your own argument it cannot be in as much as all men have not sinned this you say cannot be and yet you will not confess this which can be and which S. Paul affirms to have been indeed as if it were not more just and reasonable to say That from Adam the curse descended unto the condemnation of the sins of the world than to say the curse descended without consideration of their sins but a sin must be imagined to make it seem reasonable and just to condemn us Now I submit it to the judgment of all the world which way of arguing is most reasonable and concluding You my Lord in behalf of others argue thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condemnation cannot pass upon a man for any sin but his own Therefore every man is truly guilty of Adam's sin and that becomes his own Against this I oppose mine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condemnation cannot pass upon a man for any sin but his own therefore it did not pass upon man for Adam's sin because Adam's sin was Adam's not our own But we all have sinned we have sins of our own therefore for these the curse pass'd from Adam to us To back mine besides that common notices of sense and reason defend it I have the plain words of S. Paul Death passed upon all men for as much as all men have sinned all men that is the generality of mankind all that liv'd till they could sin the others that died before died in their nature not in their sin neither Adam's nor their own save only that Adam brought it in upon them or rather left it to them himself being disrobed of all that which could hinder it Now for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which your Lordship renders clear from sin I am sure no man is so justified in this world as to be clear from sin and if we all be sinners and yet healed as just persons it is certain we are just by imputation only that is Christ imputing our faith and sincere though not unerring obedience to us for righteousness And then the Antithesis must hold thus By Christ comes justification to life as by Adam came the curse or the sin to the condemnation of death But our justification which comes by Christ is by imputation and acceptilation by grace and favour not that we are made really that is legally and perfectly righteous but by imputation of faith and obedience to us as if it were perfect And therefore Adam's sin was but by imputation only to certain purposes not real or proper not formal or inherent For the grace by Christ is more than the sin by Adam if therefore that was not legal and proper but Evangelical and gracious favourable and imputative much more is the sin of Adam in us improperly and by imputation * And truly my Lord I think that no sound Divine of any of our Churches will say that we are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any other sence not that Christs righteousness is imputed to us without any inherent graces in us but that our imperfect services our true faith and sincere endeavours of obedience are imputed to us for righteousness through Jesus Christ and since it is certainly so I am sure the Antithesis between Christ and Adam can never be salved by making us sinners really by Adam and yet just or righteous by Christ only in acceptation and imputation For then sin should abound more than grace expresly against the honour of our blessed Saviour the glory of our redemption and the words of S. Paul But rather on the contrary is it true That though by Christ we were really and legally made perfectly righteous it follows not that we were made sinners by Adam in the same manner and measure for this similitude of S. Paul ought not to extend to an equality in all things but still the advantage and prerogative the abundance and the excess must be on the part of Grace for if sin does abound grace does much more abound and we do more partake of righteousness by Christ than of sin by Adam Christ and Adam are the several fountains of emanation and are compar'd aequè but not aequaliter Therefore this argument holds redundantly since by Christ we are not made legally righteous but by imputation only much less are we made sinners by Adam This in my sence is so infinitely far from being an objection that it perfectly demonstrates the main question and for my part I mean to relie upon it As for that which your Lordship adds out of Rom. 5.19 That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sinners not by imitation as the Pelagians dream but sinners really and effectively I shall not need to make any other reply but that 1. I do not approve of that gloss of the Pelagians that in Adam we are made sinners by imitation and much less of that which affirms we are made so properly and formally But made sinners signifies us'd like sinners so as justified signifies healed like just persons In
or else there may be punishment where there is no guilt or else natural death was not it which God threatned as the punishment of Adam's fact For it is certain that all men die as well after Baptism as before and more after than before That which would be properly the consequent of this Dilemma is this that when God threatned death to Adam saying On the day thou eatest of the tree thou shalt die the death he inflicted and intended to inflict the evils of a troublesome mortal life For Adam did not die that day but Adam began to be miserable that day to live upon hard labour to eat fruits from an accursed field till he should return to the Earth whence he was taken Gen. 3.17 18 19. So that death in the common sence of the word was to be the end of his labour not so much the punishment of the sin For it is probable he should have gone off from the scene of this world to a better though he had not sinn'd but if he had not sinn'd he should not be so afflicted and he should not have died daily till he had died finally that is till he had returned to his dust whence he was taken and whither he would naturally have gone and it is no new thing in Scripture that miseries and infelicities should be called dying or death Exod. 10.17 1 Cor. 15.31 2 Cor. 1.10 4.10 11 12. 11.23 But I only note this as probable as not being willing to admit what the Socinians answer in this argument who affirm that God threatning death to the Sin of Adam meant death eternal which is certainly not true as we learn from the words of the Apostle saying In Adam we all die which is not true of death eternal but it is true of the miseries and calamities of mankind and it is true of temporal death in the sence now explicated and in that which is commonly received But I add also this probleme That which would have been had there been no sin and that which remains when the sin or guiltiness is gone is not properly the punishment of the sin But dissolution of the soul and body should have been if Adam had not sinn'd for the world would have been too little to have entertain'd those myriads of men which must in all reason have been born from that blessing of Increase and multiply which was given at the first Creation and to have confin'd mankind to the pleasures of this world in case he had not fallen would have been a punishment of his innocence but however it might have been though God had not been angry and shall still be even when the sin is taken off The proper consequent of this will be that when the Apostle says Death came in by sin and that Death is the rages of sin he primarily and literally means the solemnities and causes and infelicities and untimeliness of temporal death and not merely the dissolution which is directly no evil but an inlet to a better state But I insist not on this but offer it to the consideration of inquisitive and modest persons And now that I may return thither from whence this objection brought me I consider that if any should urge this argument to me Baptism delivers from Original Sin Baptism does not deliver from Concupiscence therefore Concupiscence is not Original Sin I did not know well what to answer I could possibly say something to satisfie the boys and young men at a publick disputation but not to satisfie my self when I am upon my knees and giving an account to God of all my secret and hearty perswasions But I consider that by Concupiscence must be meant either the first inclinations to their object or the proper acts of Election which are the second acts of Concupiscence If the first inclinations be meant then certainly that cannot be a sin which is natural and which is necessary For I consider that Concupiscence and natural desires are like hunger which while it is natural and necessary is not for the destruction but conservation of man when it goes beyond the limits of nature it is violent and a disease and so is Concupiscence But desires or lustings when they are taken for the natural propensity to their proper object are so far from being a sin that they are the instruments of felicity for this duration and when they grow towards being irregular they may if we please grow instruments of felicity in order to the other duration because they may serve a vertue by being restrained And to desire that to which all men tend naturally is no more a sin than to desire to be happy is a sin desire is no more a sin than joy or sorrow is neither can it be fancied why one passion more than another can be in its whole nature Criminal either all or none are so when any of them grows irregular or inordinate Joy is as bad as Desire and Fear as bad as either But if by Concupiscence we mean the second acts of it that is avoidable consentings and deliberate elections then let it be as much condemned as the Apostle and all the Church after him hath sentenc'd it but then it is not Adam's sin but our own by which we are condemned for it is not his fault that we chuse If we chuse it is our own if we chuse not it is no fault For there is a natural act of the Will as well as of the Understanding and in the choice of the supreme Good and in the first apprehension of its proper object the Will is as natural as any other faculty and the other faculties have degrees of adherence as well as the Will so have the potestative and intellective faculties they are delighted in their best objects But because these only are natural and the will is natural sometimes but not always there it is that a difference can be For I consider if the first Concupiscence be a sin Original Sin for actual it is not and that this is properly personally and inherently our sin by traduction that is if our will be necessitated to sin by Adam's fall as it must needs be if it can sin when it cannot deliberate then there can be no reason told why it is more a sin to will evil than to understand it and how does that which is moral differ from that which is natural for the understanding is first and primely moved by its object and in that motion by nothing else but by God who moves all things and if that which hath nothing else to move it but the object yet is not free it is strange that the will can in any sence be free when it is necessitated by wisdom and by power and by Adam that is from within and from without besides what God and violence do and can do But in this I have not only Scripture and all the reason of the world on my side but the complying sentences of the
to most men and all of it to some men would be ineffectuall yet was pleased to consign our duty that it might be a direction to them that would and a conviction and a Testimony against them that would not obey I thought it might not misbecome my duty and endeavours to plead for peace and charity and forgiveness and permissions mutuall although I had reason to believe that such is the iniquity of men and they so indisposed to receive such impresses that I had as good plow the Sands or till the Air as perswade such Doctrines which destroy mens interests and serve no end but the great end of a happy eternity and what is in order to it But because the events of things are in God's disposition and I knew them not and because if I had known my good purposes would be totally ineffectuall as to others yet my own designation and purposes would be of advantage to myself who might from God's mercy expect the retribution which he is pleased to promise to all pious intendments I resolved to encounter with all Objections and to doe something to which I should be determined by the consideration of the present Distemperatures and necessities by my own thoughts by the Questions and Scruples the Sects and names the interests and animosities which at this day and for some years past have exercised and disquieted Christendom Thus far I discours'd myself into imployment and having come thus far I knew not how to get farther for I had heard of a great experience how difficult it was to make Brick without Straw and here I had even seen my design blasted in the bud and I despaired in the Calends of doing what I purposed in the Ides before For I had no Books of my own here nor any in the voicinage and but that I remembred the result of some of those excellent Discourses I had heard your Lordship make when I was so happy as in private to gather up what your temperance and modesty forbids to be publick I had come in praelia inermis and like enough might have far'd accordingly I had this onely advantage besides that I have chosen a subject in which if my own reason does not abuse me I needed no other books or aids then what a man carries with him on horseback I mean the common principles of Christianity and those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which men use in the transactions of the ordinary occurrences of civil society and upon the strength of them and some other collateral assistances I have run through it utcunque and the sum of the following Discourses is nothing but the sense of these words of Scripture That since we know in part and prophesie in part and that now we see through a glass darkly we should not despise or contemn persons not so knowing as ourselves but him that is weak in the faith we should receive but not to doubtfull disputations therefore certainly to charity and not to vexations not to those which are the idle effects of impertinent wranglings And provided they keep close to the foundation which is Faith and Obedience let them build upon this foundation matter more or less precious yet if the foundation be intire they shall be saved with or without loss And since we profess ourselves servants of so meek a Master and Disciples of so charitable an Institute Let us walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called with all lowliness and meekness with long-suffering forbearing one another in love for this is the best endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit when it is fast tied in the bond of peace And although it be a duty of Christianity that we all speak the same thing that there be no divisions among us but that we be perfectly joyned together in the same mind and in the same judgement yet this unity is to be estimated according to the unity of Faith in things necessary in matters of Creed and Articles fundamental for as for other things it is more to be wished then to be hoped for There are some doubtfull Disputations and in such the Scribe the Wise the Disputer of this world are most commonly very far from certainty and many times from truth There are diversity of perswasions in matters adiaphorous as meats and drinks and holy days c. and both parties the affirmative and the negative affirm and deny with innocence enough for the observer and he that observes not intend both to God and God is our common Master we are all fellow-servants and not the judge of each other in matters of conscience or doubtfull Disputation and every man that hath faith must have it to himself before God but no man must either in such matters judge his brother or set him at nought but let us follow after the things which make for peace and things wherewith one may edifie another And the way to doe that is not by knowledge but by charity for knowledge puffeth up but charity edifieth And since there is not in every man the same knowledge but the consciences of some are weak as my liberty must not be judged of another man's weak conscience so must not I please myself so much in my right opinion but I must also take order that his weak conscience be not offended or despised for no man must seek his own but every man another's wealth And although we must contend earnestly for the Faith yet above all things we must put on charity which is the bond of perfectness And therefore this contention must be with arms fit for the Christian warfare the sword of the Spirit and the shield of Faith and preparation of the Gospel of peace in stead of shoes and a helmet of salvation but not with other arms for a Church-man must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a striker for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual and the persons that use them ought to be gentle and easie to be intreated and we must give an account of our faith to them that ask us with meekness and humility for so is the will of God that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men These and thousands more to the same purpose are the Doctrines of Christianity whose sense and intendment I have prosecuted in the following Discourse being very much displeased that so many Opinions and new Doctrines are commenc'd among us but more troubled that every man that hath an Opinion thinks his own and other mens Salvation is concern'd in its maintenance but most of all that men should be persecuted and afflicted for disagreeing in such Opinions which they cannot with sufficient grounds obtrude upon others necessarily because they cannot propound them infallibly and because they have no warrant from Scripture so to doe For if I shall tie other men to believe my Opinion because I think I have a place of Scripture which
a lie But a good man that believes what according to his light and upon the use of his moral industry he thinks true whether he hits upon the right or no because he hath a mind desirous of truth and prepared to believe every truth is therefore acceptable to God because nothing hindred him from it but what he could not help his misery and his weakness which being imperfections meerly natural which God never punishes he stands fair for a blessing of his morality which God always accepts So that now if Stephen had followed the example of God Almighty or retained but the same peaceable spirit which his Brother of Carthage did he might with more advantage to truth and reputation both of wisdom and piety have done his duty in attesting what he believed to be true for we are as much bound to be zealous pursuers of peace as earnest contenders for the Faith I am sure more earnest we ought to be for the peace of the Church than for an Article which is not of the Faith as this Question of rebaptization was not for S. Cyprian died in belief against it and yet was a Catholick and a Martyr for the Christian Faith 23. The summe is this S. Cyprian did right in a wrong cause as it hath been since judged and Stephen did ill in a good cause as far then as piety and charity is to be perferred before a true opinion so far is S. Cyprian's practice a better precedent for us and an example of primitive sanctity than the zeal and indiscretion of Stephen S. Cyprian had not learned to forbid to any one a liberty of prophesying or interpretation if he transgressed not the foundation of Faith and the Creed of the Apostles 24. Well thus it was and thus it ought to be in the first Ages the Faith of Christendom rested still upon the same foundation and the judgements of heresies were accordingly or were amiss but the first great violation of this truth was when General Councils came in and the Symbols were enlarged and new Articles were made as much of necessity to be believed as the Creed of the Apostles and damnation threatned to them that did dissent and at last the Creeds multiplied in number and in Articles and the liberty of prophesying began to be something restrained 25. And this was of so much the more force and efficacy because it began upon great reason and in the first instance with success good enough For I am much pleased with the enlarging of the Creed which the Council of Nice made because they enlarged it to my sence but I am non sure that others are satisfied with it While we look upon the Articles they did determine we see all things well enough but there are some wise personages consider it in all circumstances and think the Church had been more happy if she had not been in some sence constrained to alter the simplicity of her faith and make it more curious and articulate so much that he had need be a subtle man to understand the very words of the new determinations 26. For the first Alexander Bishop of Alexandria in the presence of his Clergy entreats somewhat more curiously of the secret of the mysterious Trinity and Unity so curiously that Arius who was a Sophister too subtle as it afterward appeared misunderstood him and thought he intended to bring in the heresy of Sabellius For while he taught the Unity of the Tritity either he did it so inartificially or so intricately that Arius thought he did not distinguish the persons when the Bishop intended only the unity of nature Against this Arius furiously drives and to confute Sabellius and in him as he thought the Bishop distinguishes the natures too and so to secure the Article of the Trinity destroyes the Unity It was the first time the Question was disputed in the world and in such mysterious niceties possibly every wise man may understand something but few can understand all and therefore suspect what they understand not and are furiously zealous for that part of it which they do perceive Well it happened in these as always in such cases in things men understand not they are most impetuous and because suspicion is a thing infinite in degrees for it hath nothing to determine it a suspicious person is ever most violent for his fears are worse than the thing feared because the thing is limited but his fears are not so that upon this grew contentious on both sides and tumultuous rayling and reviling each other and then the Laity were drawn into parts and the Meletians abetted the wrong part and the right part fearing to be overborn did any thing that was next at hand to secure it self Now then they that lived in that Age that understood the men that saw how quiet the Church was before this stirre how miserably rent now what little benefit from the Question what schism about it gave other censures of the business than we since have done who only look upon the Article determined with truth and approbation of the Church generally since that time But the Epistle of Constantine to Alexander and Arius tells the truth and chides them both for commencing the Question Alexander for broaching it Arius for taking it up and although this be true that it had been better for the Church it never had begun yet being begun what is to be done in it of this also in that admirable Epistle we have the Emperours judgment I suppose not without the advice and privity of Hosius Bishop of Corduba whom the Emperour loved and trusted much and imployed in the delivery of the Letters For first he calls it a certain vain piece of a Question ill begun and more unadvisedly published a Question which no Law or Ecclesiastical Canon defineth a fruitless contention the product of idle brains a matter so nice so obscure so intricate that it was neither to be explicated by the Clergy nor understood by the people a dispute of words a doctrine inexplicable but most dangerous when taught lest it introduce discord or blasphemy and therefore the Objector was rash and the Answerer unadvised for it concerned not the substance of Faith or the worship of God nor any chief commandment of Scripture and therefore why should it be the matter of discord For though the matter be grave yet because neither necessary nor explicable the contention is trifling and toyish And therefore as the Philosophers of the same Sect though differing in explication of an opinion yet more love for the unity of their Profession than disagree for the difference of opinion So should Christians believing in the same God retaining the same Faith having the same hopes opposed by the same enemies not fall at variance upon such disputes considering our understandings are not all alike and therefore neither can our opinions in such mysterious Articles So that the matter being of no great importance but vain and a
toy in respect of the excellent blessings of peace and charity it were good that Alexander and Arius should leave contending keep their opinions to themselves ask each other forgiveness and give mutual toleration This is the substance of Constantine's letter and it contains in it much reason if he did not undervalue the Question but it seems it was not then thought a question of Faith but of nicety of dispute they both did believe one God and the holy Trinity Now then that he afterward called the Nicene Council it was upon occasion of the vileness of the men of the Arian part their eternal discord and pertinacious wrangling and to bring peace into the Church that was the necessity and in order to it was the determination of the Article But for the Article it self the Letter declares what opinion he had of that and this Letter was by Socrates called a wonderful exhortation full of grave and sober counsels and such as Hosius himself who was the messenger pressed with all earnestness with all the skill and Authority he had 27. I know the opinion the world had of the Article afterward is quite differing from this censure given of it before and therefore they have put it into the Creed I suppose to bring the world to unity and to prevent Sedition in this Question and the accidental blasphemies which were occasioned by their curious talkings of such secret mysteries and by their illiterate resolutions But although the Article was determined with an excellent spirit and we all with much reason profess to believe it yet it is another consideration whether or no it might not have been better determined if with more simplicity and another yet whether or no since many of the Bishops who did believe this thing yet did not like the nicety and curiosity of expressing it it had not been more agreeable to the practice of the Apostles to have made a determination of the Article by way of Exposition of the Apostles Creed and to have lest this in a rescript for record to all posterity and not to have enlarged the Creed with it for since it was an Explication of an Article of the Creed of the Apostles as Sermons are of places of Scripture it was thought by some that Scripture might with good profit and great truth be expounded and yet the Expositions not put into the Canon or go for Scripture but that left still in the naked Original simplicity and so much the rather since that Explication was further from the foundation and though most certainly true yet not penn'd by so infallible a spirit as was that of the Apostles and therefore not with so much evidence as certainty And if they had pleased they might have made use of an admirable precedent to this and many other great and good purposes no less than of the blessed Apostles whose Symbol they might have imitated with as much simplicity as they did the Expressions of Scripture when they first composed it For it is most considerable that although in reason every clause in the Creed should be clear and so inopportune and unapt to variety of interpretation that there might be no place left for several sences or variety of Expositions yet when they thought fit to insert some mysteries into the Creed which in Scripture were expressed in so mysterious words that the last and most explicite sence would still be latent yet they who if ever any did understood all the sences and secrets of it thought it not fit to use any words but the words of Scripture particularly in the Articles of Christs descending into Hell and sitting at the right hand of God to shew us that those Creeds are best which keep the very words of Scripture and that Faith is best which hath greatest simplicity and that it is better in all cases humbly to submit than curiously to enquire and pry into the mystery under the cloud and to hazard our Faith by improving our knowledge If the Nicene Fathers had done so too possibly the Church would never have repented it 28. And indeed the experience the Church had afterwards shewed that the Bishops and Priests were not satisfied in all circumstances nor the schism appeased nor the persons agreed nor the Canons accepted nor the Article understood nor any thing right but when they were overborn with Authority which Authority when the scales turned did the same service and promotion to the contrary 29. But it is considerable that it was not the Article or the thing it self that troubled the disagreeing persons but the manner of representing it For the five Dissenters Eusebius of Nicomedia Theognis Maris Theonas and Secundus believed Christ to be very God of very God but the clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they derided as being perswaded by their Logick that he was neither of the substance of the Father by division as a piece of a lump nor derivation as children from their Parents nor by production as buds from trees and no body could tell them any other way at that time and that made the fire to burn still And that was it I said if the Article had been with more simplicity and less nicety determined charity would have gained more and faith would have lost nothing And we shall find the wisest of them all for so Eusebius Pamphilus was esteemed published a Creed or Confession in the Synod and though he and all the rest believed that great mystery of Godliness God manifested in the flesh yet he was not fully satisfied nor so soon of the clause of one substance till he had done a little violence to his own understanding for even when he had subscribed to the clause of one substance he does it with a protestation that heretofore he never had been acquainted nor accustomed himself to such speeches And the sence of the word was either so ambiguous or their meaning so uncertain that Andreus Fricius does with some probability dispute that the Nicene Fathers by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did mean Patris similitudinem non essentiae unitatem Sylva 4. c. 1. And it was so well understood by personages disinterested that when Arius and Euzoius had confessed Christ to be Deus verbum without inserting the clause of one substance the Emperour by his Letter approved of his Faith and restored him to his Countrey and Office and the Communion of the Church And a long time after although the Article was believed with nicety enough yet when they added more words still to the mystery and brought in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying there were three hypostases in the holy Trinity it was so long before it could be understood that it was believed therefore because they would not oppose their Superiours or disturb the peace of the Church in things which they thought could not be understood in so much that Saint Hierom writ to Damascus in these words Discerne si placet obsecro non timebo
secure himself that in all the mysteries of Religion taught in Scripture he shall certainly understand and explicitely believe that sence that God intended For to this purpose there are many considerations 4. First There are so many thousands of Copies that were writ by persons of several interests and perswasions such different understandings and tempers such distinct abilities and weaknesses that it is no wonder there is so great variety of readings both in the Old Testament and in the New In the Old Testament the Jews pretend that the Christians have corrupted many places on purpose to make symphony between both the Testaments On the other side the Christians have had so much reason to suspect the Jews that when Aquila had translated the Bible in their Schools and had been taught by them they rejected the Edition many of them and some of them called it heresy to follow it And Justin Martyr justified it to Triphon that the Jews had defalk'd many sayings from the Books of the old Prophets and amongst the rest he instances in that of the Psalm Dicite in nationibus quia Dominus regnavit à ligno The last words they have cut off and prevailed so far in it that to this day none of our Bibles have it but if they ought not to have it then Justin Martyrs Bible had more in it than it should have for there it was so that a fault there was either under or over But however there are infinite Readings in the New-Testament for in that I will instance some whole Verses in one that are not in another and there was in some Copies of Saint Marks Gospel in the last Chapter a whole verse a Chapter it was anciently called that is not found in our Bibles as S. Hierom. ad Hedibiam q. 3. notes The words he repeats Lib. 2. contr Polygamos Et illi satis faciebant dicentes saeculum istud iniquitatis incredulitatis substantia est quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam These words are thought by some to savour of Manichaism and for ought I can find were therefore rejected out of many Greek Copies and at last out of the Latine Now suppose that a Manichee in disputation should urge this place having found it in his Bible if a Catholick should answer him by saying it is Apocryphal and not found in divers Greek Copies might not the Manichee ask how it came in if it was not the word of God and if it was how came it out and at last take the same liberty of rejecting any other Authority which shall be alledged against him if he can find any Copy that may favour him however that favour be procured and did not the Ebionites reject all the Epistles of Saint Paul upon pretence he was an enemy to the Law of Moses indeed it was boldly and most unreasonably done but if one tittle or one Chapter of St. Mark be called Apocryphal for being suspected of Manichaisme it is a plea that will too much justifie others in their taking and chusing what they list But I will not urge it so far but is not there as much reason for the fierce Lutherans to reject the Epistle of Saint James for favouring justification by works or the Epistle to the Hebrews upon pretence that the sixth and tenth Chapters do favour Novatianisme especially since it was by some famous Churches at first not accepted even by the Church of Rome her self The Parable of the woman taken in adultery which is now in Joh. 8. Eusebius says was not in any Gospel but the Gospel secundum Hebraeos and St. Hierom makes it doubtful and so does St. Chrysostome and Euthymius the first not vouchsafing to explicate it in his Homilies upon St. John the other affirming it not to be found in the exacter Copies I shall not need to urge that there are some words so near in sound that the Scribes might easily mistake There is one famous one of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which yet some Copies read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sence is very unlikely though the words be near and there needs some little luxation to strain this latter reading to a good sence That famous precept of Saint Paul that the women must pray with a covering on their head 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the Angels hath brought into the Church an opinion that Angels are present in Churches and are Spectatours of our devotion and deportment Such an opinion if it should meet with peevish opposites on the one side and confident Hyperaspists on the other might possibly make a Sect and here were a clear ground for the affirmative and yet who knows but that it might have been a mistake of the Transcribers for if it were read as Gothofrid and some others would have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the sence be women in publick Assemblies must wear a vail by reason of the Companies of the young men there present it would be no ill exchange for the little change of some letters in a word to make so probable so clear a sence of the place But the instances in this kind are too many as appears in the variety of readings in several Copies proceeding from the negligence or ignorance of the Transcribers or the malicious endeavour of Hereticks or the inserting Marginal Notes into the Text or the nearness of several words Indeed there is so much evidence of this particular that it hath encouraged the servants of the Vulgar Translation for so some are now adays to prefer that Translation before the Original for although they have attempted that proposition with very ill success yet that they could think it possible to be proved is an Argument there is much variety and alterations in divers Texts for if there were not it were impudence to pretend a Translation and that none of the best should be better than the Original But so it is that this variety of reading is not of slight consideration for although it be demonstrably true that all things necessary to Faith and good manners are preserved from alteration and corruption because they are of things necessary and they could not be necessary unless they were delivered to us God in his goodness and his justice having obliged himself to preserve that which he hath bound us to observe and keep yet in other things which God hath not obliged himself so punctually to preserve in these things since variety of reading is crep◠in every reading takes away a degree of certainty from any proposition derivative from those places so read And if some Copies especially if they be publick and notable omit a verse or a tittle every argument from such a tittle or verse loses much of its strength and reputation and we find it in a great instance For when in probation of the
doctrine of the Church of Rome which they learnt from St. Augustin and others also do from hence baptize Infants though with a less opinion of its absolute necessity And yet the same manner of precept in the same form of words in the same manner of threatning by an exclusive negative shall not enjoyn us to communicate Infants though damnation at least in form of words be exactly and per omnia alike appendant to the neglect of holy Baptism and the venerable Eucharist If nisi quis renatus shall conclude against the Anabaptist for necessity of baptizing Infants as sure enough we say it does why shall not an equal nisi comederitis bring Infants to the holy Communion The Primitive Church for some two whole ages did follow their own principles where ever they led them and seeing that upon the same ground equal results must follow they did Communicate Infants as soon as they had baptized them And why the Church of Rome should not do so too being she expounds nisi comederitis of Oral manducation I cannot yet learn a reason And for others that expound it of a spiritual manducation why they shall not allow the disagreeing part the same liberty of expounding nisi quis renatus too I by no means can understand And in these cases no external determiner can be pretended in answer For whatsoever is extrinsecal to the words as Councils Traditions Church Authority and Fathers either have said nothing at all or have concluded by their practice contrary to the present opinion as is plain by their communicating Infants by virtue of nisi comederitis 8. Fifthly I shall not need to urge the mysteriousness of some points in Scripture which ex natura rei are hard to be understood though very plainly represented For there are some secreta Theologiae which are only to be understood by persons very holy and spiritual which are rather to be felt than discoursed of and therefore if peradventure they be offered to publick consideration they will therefore be opposed because they run the same fortune with many other Questions that is not to be understood and so much the rather because their understanding that is the feeling such secrets of the Kingdom are not the results of Logick and Philosophy nor yet of publick revelation but of the publick spirit privately working and in no man is a duty but in all that have it is a reward and is not necessary for all but given to some producing its operations not regularly but upon occasions personal necessities and new emergencies Of this nature are the spirit of obsignation belief of particular salvation special influences and comforts coming from a sense of the spirit of adoption actual fervours and great complacencies in devotion spiritual joyes which are little drawings aside of the curtains of peace and eternity and antepasts of immortality But the not understanding the perfect constitution and temper of these mysteries and it is hard for any man so to understand as to make others do so too that feel them not is cause that in â—any Questions of secret Theology by being very apt and easie to be mistaken there is a necessity in forbearing one another and this consideration would have been of good use in the Question between Soto and Catharinus both for the preservation of their charity and explication of the mystery 9. Sixthly But here it will not be unseasonable to consider that all systems and principles of science are expressed so that either by reason of the Universality of the terms and subject matter or the infinite variety of humane understandings and these peradventure swayed by interest or determined by things accidental and extrinsecal they seem to divers men nay to the same men upon divers occasions to speak things extreamly disparate and sometimes contrary but very often of great variety And this very thing happens also in Scripture that if it were not in re sacrâ seriâ it were excellent sport to observe how the same place of Scripture serves several turns upon occasion and they at that time believe the words sound nothing else whereas in the liberty of their judgment and abstracting from that occasion their Commentaries understand them wholly to a differing sence It is a wonder of what excellent use to the Church of Rome is tibi dabo claves It was spoken to Peter and none else sometimes and therefore it concerns him and his Successours only the rest are to derive from him And yet if you question them for their Sacrament of Penance and Priestly Absolution then tibi dabo claves comes in and that was spoken to S. Peter and in him to the whole College of the Apostles and in them to the whole Hierarchy If you question why the Pope pretends to free souls from Purgatory tibi dabo claves is his warrant but if you tell him the Keys are only for binding and loosing on Earth directly and in Heaven consequently and that Purgatory is a part of Hell or rather neither Earth nor Heaven nor Hell and so the Keys seem to have nothing to do with it then his Commission is to be enlarged by a suppletory of reason and consequences and his Keys shall unlock this difficulty for it is clavis scientiae as well as authoritatis And these Keys shall enable him to expound Scriptures infallibly to determine Questions to preside in Councils to dictate to all the World Magisterially to rule the Church to dispence with Oaths to abrogate Laws And if his Key of knowledge will not the Key of Authority shall and tibi dabo claves shall answer for all We have an instance in the single fancy of one man what rare variety of matter is afforded from those plain words of Oravi pro te Petre Luke 22. for that place says Bellarmine is otherwise to be understood of Peter otherwise of the Popes and otherwise of the Church of Rome And pro te signifies that Christ prayed that Peter might neither err personally nor judicially and that Peters Successors if they did err personally might not err judicially and that the Roman Church might not err personally All this variety of sence is pretended by the fancy of one man to be in a few words which are as plain and simple as are any words in Scripture And what then in those thousands that are intricate So is done with pasce oves which a man would think were a Commission as innocent and guiltless of designs as the sheep in the folds are But if it be asked why the Bishop of Rome calls himself Universal Bishop Pasces oves is his warrant Why he pretends to a power of deposing Princes Pasce oves said Christ to Peter the second time If it be demanded why also he pretends to a power of authorizing his subjects to kill him Pasce agnos said Christ the third time And pasce is doce and pasce is Impera and pasce is occide Now if others should take the same
unreasonableness I will not say but the same liberty in expounding Scripture or if it be not licence taken but that the Scripture it self is so full and redundant in sences quite contrary what man soever or what company of men soever shall use this principle will certainly find such rare productions from several places that either the unreasonableness of the thing will discover the errour of the proceeding or else there will be a necessity of permitting a great liberty of judgment where is so infinite variety without limit or mark of necessary determination If the first then because an errour is so obvious and ready to our selves it will be great imprudence or tyranny to be hasty in judging others but if the latter it is it that I contend for for it is most unreasonable when either the thing it self ministers variety or that we take licence to our selves in variety of interpretations or proclaim to all the world our great weakness by our actually being deceived that we should either prescribe to others magisterially when we are in errour or limit their understandings when the thing it self affords liberty and variety SECT IV. Of the difficulty of expounding Scripture 1. THese considerations are taken from the nature of Scripture it self but then if we consider that we have no certain ways of determining places of difficulty and question infallibly and certainly but that we must hope to be saved in the belief of things plain necessary and fundamental and our pious endeavour to find out Gods meaning in such places which he hath left under a cloud for other great ends reserved to his own knowledge we shall see a very great necessity in allowing a liberty in Prophesying without prescribing authoritatively to other mens consciences and becoming Lords and Masters of their Faith Now the means of expounding Scripture are either external or internal For the external as Church Authority Tradition Fathers Councils and Decrees of Bishops they are of a distinct consideration and follow after in their order But here we will first consider the invalidity and uncertainty of all those means of expounding Scripture which are more proper and internal to the nature of the thing The great Masters of Commentaries some whereof have undertaken to know all mysteries have propounded many ways to expound Scripture which indeed are excellent helps but not infallible assistances both because themselves are but moral instruments which force not truth ex abscondito as also because they are not infallibly used and applyed 1. Sometime the sence is drawn forth by the context and connexion of parts It is well when it can be so But when there is two or three antecedents and subjects spoken of what man or what rule shall ascertain me that I make my reference true by drawing the relation to such an antecedent to which I have a mind to apply it another hath not For in a contexture where one part does not always depend upon another where things of differing natures intervene and interrupt the first intentions there it is not always very probable to expound Scripture and take its meaning by its proportion to the neighbouring words But who desires satisfaction in this may read the observation verified in S. Gregory's Morals upon Job lib. 5. c. 22. and the instances he there brings are excellent proof that this way of Interpretation does not warrant any man to impose his Expositions upon the belief and understanding of other men too confidently and magisterially 2. Secondly Another great pretence or medium is the conference of places which Illyricus calls ingens remedium foelicissimam expositionem sanctae scripturae and indeed so it is if well and temperately used but then we are beholding to them that do so for there is no rule that can constrain them to it for comparing of places is of so indefinite capacity that if there be ambiguity of words variety of sence alteration of circumstances or difference of stile amongst Divine Writers then there is nothing that may be more abused by wilful people or may more easily deceive the unwary or that may more amuse the most intelligent Observer The Anabaptists take advantage enough in this proceeding and indeed so may any one that list and when we pretend against them the necessity of baptizing all by authority of nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ spiritu they have a parallel for it and tell us that Christ will baptize us with the holy Ghost and with fire and that one place expounds the other and because by fire is not meant an Element or any thing that is natural but an Allegory and figurative expression of the same thing so also by water may be meant the figure signifying the effect or manner of operation of the holy Spirit Fire in one place and water in the other do but represent to us that Christs baptism is nothing else but the cleansing and purifying us by the holy Ghost But that which I here note as of greatest concernment and which in all reason ought to be an utter overthrow to this topick 〈◊〉 an universal abuse of it among those that use it most and when two places seem to have the same expression or if a word have a double signification because in this place it may have such a sence therefore it must because in one of the places the sence is to their purpose they conclude that therefore it must be so in the other too An instance I give in the great Question between the Socinians and the Catholicks If any place be urged in which our blessed Saviour is called God they shew you two or three where the word â—od is taken in a depressed sence for a quasi Deus as when God said to Moses Constitui te Deum Pharaonis and hence they argue because I can shew the word is used for a Deus factus therefore no argument is sufficient to prove Christ to be Deus verus from the appellative of Deus And might not another argue to the exact contrary and as well urge that Moses is Deus verus because in some places the word Deus is used pro Deo aeterno Both ways the Argument concludes impiously and unreasonably It is a fallacy à posse ad esse affirmativè because breaking of bread is sometimes used for an Eucharistical manducation in Scripture therefore I shall not from any testimony of Scripture affirming the first Christians to have broken bread together conclude that they lived hospitably and in common society Because it may possibly be eluded therefore it does not signifie any thing And this is the great way of answering all the Arguments that can be brought against any thing that any man hath a mind to defend and any man that reads any controversies of any side shall find as many instances of this vanity almost as he finds arguments from Scripture this fault was of old noted by S. Austin for then they had got the trick and
would bring in after Ages to the Authority of a competent judge or witness say the same thing for they plainly confess that the first Ages spake little or nothing to the present Question or at least nothing to their sence of them for therefore they call in aid from the following Ages and make them suppletory and auxiliary to their designs and therefore there are no Traditions to our purposes And they who would willingly have it otherwise yet have taken no course it should be otherwise for they when they had opportunity in the Councils of the last Ages to determine what they had a mind to yet they never named the number nor expressed the particular Traditions which they would fain have the world believe to be Apostolical But they have kept the bridle in their own hands and made a reserve of their own power that if need be they may make new pretensions or not be put to it to justifie the old by the engagement of a conciliary declaration 11. Lastly We are acquitted by the testimony of the Primitive Fathers from any other necessity of believing than of such Articles as are recorded in Scripture And this is done by them whose Authority is pretended the greatest Argument for Tradition as appears largely in Irenaeus who disputes professedly for the sufficiency of Scripture against certain Hereticks who affirm some necessary truths not to be written It was an excellent saying of S. Basil and will never be wip'd out with all the eloquence of Perron in his Serm. de fide Manifestus est fidei lapsus liquidum superbiae viâ—ium vel respuere aliquid eorum quae Scriptura habet vel inducere quicquam quod scriptum non est And it is but a poor device to say that every particular Tradition is consigned in Scripture by those places which give Authority to Tradition and so the introducing of Tradition is not a super-inducing any thing over or besides Scripture because Tradition is like a Messenger and the Scripture is like his Letters of Credence and therefore Authorizes whatsoever Tradition speaketh For supposing Scripture does consign the Authority of Tradition which it might do before all the whole Instrument of Scripture it self was consigned and then afterwards there might be no need of Tradition yet supposing it it will follow that all those Traditions which are truly prime and Apostolical are to be entertained according to the intention of the Deliverers which indeed is so reasonable of it self that we need not Scripture to perswade us to it it self is authentick as Scripture is if it derives from the same fountain and a word is never the more the Word of God for being written nor the less for not being written but it will not follow that whatsoever is pretended to be Tradition is so neither is the credit of the particular instances consigned in Scripture dolosus versatur in generalibus but that this craft is too palpable And if a general and indefinite consignation of Tradition be sufficient to warrant every particular that pretends to be Tradition then S. Basil had spoken to no purpose by saying it is Pride and Apostasie from the Faith to bring in what is not written For if either any man brings in what is written or what he says is delivered then the first being express Scripture and the second being consigned in Scripture no man can be charged with superinducing what is not written he hath his answer ready And then these are zealous words absolutely to no purpose but if such general consignation does not warrant every thing that pretends to Tradition but only such as are truly proved to be Apostolical then Scripture is useless as to this particular for such Tradition gives testimony to Scripture and therefore is of it self first and more credible for it is credible of it self and therefore unless Saint Basil thought that all the will of God in matters of Faith and Doctrine were written I see not what end nor what sence he could have in these words For no man in the World except Enthusiasts and mad-men ever obtruded a Doctrine upon the Church but he pretended Scripture for it or Tradition and therefore no man could be pressed by these words no man confuted no man instructed no not Enthusiasts or Montanists For suppose either of them should say that since in Scripture the holy Ghost is promised to abide with the Church for ever to teach whatever they pretend the Spirit in any Age hath taught them is not to super-induce any thing beyond what is written because the truth of the Spirit his veracity and his perpetual teaching being promised and attested in Scripture Scripture hath just so consigned all such Revelations as Perron saith it hath all such Traditions But I will trouble my self no more with Arguments from any humane Authorities but he that is surprized with the belief of such Authorities and will but consider the very many testimonies of Antiquity to this purpose as of Constantine St. Hierom St. Austin St. Athanasius St. Hilary St. Epiphanius and divers others all speaking words to the same sence with that saying of St. Paul Nemo sentiat super quod scriptum est will see that there is reason that since no man is materially a Heretick but he that errs in a point of Faith and all Faith is sufficiently recorded in Scripture the judgment of Faith and Heresie is to be derived from thence and no man is to be condemned for dissenting in an Article for whose probation Tradition only is pretended only according to the degree of its evidence let every one determine himself but of this evidence we must not judge for others for unless it be in things of Faith and absolute certainties evidence is a word of relation and so supposes two terms the object and the faculty and it is an imperfect speech to say a thing is evident in it self unless we speak of first principles or clearest revelations for that may be evident to one that is not so to another by reason of the pregnancy of some apprehensions and the immaturity of others This discourse hath its intention in Traditions Doctrinal and Ritual that is such Traditions which propose Articles new in materiâ but now if Scripture be the repository of all Divine Truths sufficient for us Tradition must be considered as its instrument to convey its great mysteriousness to our understandings it is said there are traditive Interpretations as well as traditive propositions but these have not much distinct consideration in them both because their uncertainty is as great as the other upon the former considerations as also because in very deed there are no such things as traditive Interpretations universal For as for particulars they signifie no more but that they are not sufficient determinations of Questions Theological therefore because they are particular contingent and of infinite variety and they are no more Argument than the
the faults and failings of humanity It is a famous saying of St. Gregory That he had the four first Councils in esteem and veneration next to the four Evangelists I suppose it was because he did believe them to have proceeded according to rule and to have judged righteous judgment but why had not he the same opinion of other Councils too which were celebrated before his death for he lived after the fifth General not because they had not the same Authority for that which is warrant for one is warrant for all but because he was not so confident that they did their duty nor proceeded so without interest as the first four had done and the following Councils did never get that reputation which all the Catholick Church acknowledged due to the first four And in the next Order were the three following Generals for the Greeks and Latines did never jointly acknowledge but seven Generals to have been authentick in any sence because they were in no sence agreed that any more than seven had proceeded regularly and done their duty So that now the Question is not whether General Councils have a promise that the holy Ghost will assist them For every private man hath that promise that if he does his duty he shall be assisted sufficiently in order to that end to which he needs assistance and therefore much more shall General Councils in order to that end for which they convene and to which they need assistance that is in order to the conservation of the Faith for the doctrinal rules of good life and all that concerns the essential duty of a Christian but not in deciding Questions to satisfie contentions or curious or presumptuous spirits But now can the Bishops so convened be factious can they be abused with prejudice or transported with interests can they resist the holy Ghost can they extinguish the Spirit can they stop their ears and serve themselves upon the holy Spirit and the pretence of his assistances and cease to serve him upon themselves by captivating their understandings to his dictates and their wills to his precepts Is it necessary they should perform any condition is there any one duty for them to perform in these Assemblies a duty which they have power to do or not to do If so then they may fail of it and not do their duty And if the assistance of the holy Spirit be conditional then we have no more assurance that they are assisted than that they do their duty and do not sin 2. Now let us suppose what this duty is Certainly if the Gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost and all that come to the knowledge of the truth must come to it by such means which are spiritual and holy dispositions in order to a holy and spiritual end They must be shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace that is they must have peaceable and docible dispositions nothing with them that is violent and resolute to encounter those gentle and sweet assistances and the Rule they are to follow is the Rule which the holy Spirit hath consigned to the Catholick Church that is the holy Scripture either intirely or at least for the greater part of the Rule So that now if the Bishops be factious and prepossessed with perswasions depending upon interest it is certain they may judge amiss and if they recede from the Rule it is certain they do judge amiss And this I say upon their grounds who most advance the Authority of General Councils For if a General Council may err if a Pope confirm it not then most certainly if in any thing it recede from Scripture it does also err because that they are to expect the Popes confirmation they offer to prove from Scripture now if the Popes confirmation be required by authority of Scripture and that therefore the defailance of it does evacuate the Authority of the Council then also are the Councils Decrees invalid if they recede from any other part of Scripture So that Scripture is the Rule they are to follow and a man would have thought it had been needless to have proved it but that we are fallen into Ages in which no truth is certain no reason concluding nor is there any thing that can convince some men For Stapleton with extream boldness against the piety of Christendom against the publick sence of the ancient Church and the practice of all pious Assemblies of Bishops affirms the Decrees of a Council to be binding etiamsi non confirmetur ne probabilì testimonio Scripturarum nay though it be quite extra Scripturam but all wise and good men have ever said that sence which Saint Hilary expressed in these words Quae extra Evangelium sunt non defendam This was it which the good Emperour Constantine propounded to the Fathers met at Nice Libri Evangelici oracula Apostolorum veterum Prophetarum clarè nos instruunt quid sentiendum in Divinis And this is confessed by a sober man of the Roman Church it self the Cardinal of Cusa Oportet quòd omnia talia quae legere debent contineantur in Authoritatibus sacrarum Scripturarum Now then all the advantage I shall take from hence is this That if the Apostles commended them who examined their Sermons by their conformity to the Law and the Prophets and the men of Berea were accounted noble for searching the Scriptures whether those things which they taught were so or no I suppose it will not be denied but the Councils Decrees may also be tryed whether they be conform to Scripture yea or no and although no man can take cognisance and judge the Decrees of a Council pro Authoritate publicâ yet pro informatione privatâ they may the Authority of a Council is not greater than the Authority of the Apostles nor their dictates more sacred or authentick Now then put case a Council should recede from Scripture whether or no were we bound to believe its Decrees I only ask the Question For it were hard to be bound to believe what to our understanding seems contrary to that which we know to be the Word of God But if we may lawfully recede from the Councils Decrees in case they be contrariant to Scripture it is all that I require in this Question For if they be tyed to a Rule then they are to be examined and understood according to the Rule and then we are to give our selves that liberty of judgment which is requisite to distinguish us from beasts and to put us into a capacity of reasonable people following reasonable guides But however if it be certain that the Councils are to follow Scripture then if it be notorious that they do recede from Scripture we are sure we must obey God rather than men and then we are well enough For unless we are bound to shut our eyes and not to look upon the Sun if we may give our selves liberty to believe what seems most
when he was in the Persian War when as it is known before that time he had returned to Rome and triumphed for his Persian Conquest as Eusebius in his Chronicle reports and this is so plain that Binius and Baronius pretend the Text to be corrupted and to go to mend it by such an emendation as is a plain contradiction to the sense and that so un-clerk-like viz. by putting in two words and leaving out one which whether it may be allowed them by any licence less then Poetical let Criticks judge S. Gregory saith that the Constantinopolitans had corrupted the Synod of Chalcedon and that he suspected the same concerning the Ephesine Council And in the fifth Synod there was a notorious prevarication for there were false Epistles of Pope Vigilius and Menna the Patriarch of Constantinople inserted and so they passed for authentick till they were discovered in the sixth General Synod Actions the 12. and 14. And not onely false Decrees and Actions may creep into the Codes of Councils but sometimes the authority of a learned man may abuse the Church with pretended Decrees of which there is no Copy or shadow in the Code itself And thus Thomas Aquinas says that the Epistle to the Hebrews was reckoned in the Canon by the Nicene Council no shadow of which appears in those Copies we now have of it and this pretence and the reputation of the man prevailed so far with Melchior Canus the learned Bishop of the Canaries that he believed it upon this ground Vir sanctus rem adeò gravem non astrueret nisi compertum habuisset and there are many things which have prevailed upon less reason and a more slight Authority And that very Council of Nice hath not onely been pretended by Aquinas but very much abused by others and its Authority and great reputation hath made it more liable to the fraud and pretences of idle people For whereas the Nicene Fathers made but twenty Canons for so many and no more were received by Cecilian of Carthage that was at Nice in the Council by Saint Austin and 200 African Bishops with him by Saint Cyril of Alexandria by Atticus of Constantinople by Ruffinus Isidore and Theodoret as Baronius witnesses yet there are fourscore lately found out in an Arabian MS. and published in Latine by Turrian and Alfonsus of Pisa Jesuites surely and like to be masters of the mint And not onely the Canons but the very Acts of the Nicene Council are false and spurious and are so confessed by Baronius though how he and Lindanus will be reconciled upon the point I neither know well nor much care Now if one Council be corrupted we see by the instance of S. Gregory that another may be suspected and so all because he found the Council of Chalcedon corrupted he suspected also the Ephesine and another might have suspected more for the Nicene was tampered foully with and so three of the four Generals were sullied and made suspicious and therefore we could not be secure of any If false Acts be inserted in one Council who can trust the actions of any unless he had the keeping the Records himself or durst swear for the Register And if a very learned man as Thomas Aquinas was did either wilfully deceive us or was himself ignorantly abused in Allegation of a Canon which was not it is but a very fallible Topick at the best and the most holy man that is may be abused himself and the wisest may deceive others 10. Sixthly and lastly To all this and to the former instances by way of Corollary I adde some more particulars in which it is notorious that Councils General and National that is such as were either General by Original or by adoption into the Canon of the Catholick Church did erre and were actually deceived The first Council of Toledo admits to the Communion him that hath a Concubine so he have no wife besides and this Council is approved by Pope Leo in the 92. Epistle to Rusticus Bishop of Narbona Gratian saies that the Council means by a Concubine a wise married sine dote solennitate but this is dawbing with untempered morter For though it was a custome amongst the Jews to distinguish Wives from their Concubines by Dowry and legal Solennities yet the Christian distinguished them no otherwise then as lawfull and unlawfull then as Chastity and Fornication And besides if by a Concubine is meant a lawfull wife without a Dowry to what purpose should the Council make a Law that such a one might be admitted to the Communion for I suppose it was never thought to be a Law of Christianity that a man should have a Portion with his Wife nor he that married a poor Virgin should deserve to be Excommunicate So that Gratian and his Followers are prest so with this Canon that to avoid the impiety of it they expound it to a signification without sense or purpose But the business then was that Adultery was so publick and notorious a practice that the Council did chuse rather to endure simple Fornication that by such permission of a less they might slacken the publick custome of a greater just as at Rome they permit Stews to prevent unnatural sins But that by a publick sanction Fornicators habitually and notoriously such should be admitted to the holy Communion was an act of Priests so unfit for Priests that no excuse can make it white or clean The Council of Wormes does authorize a superstitious custom at that time too much used of discovering stolen goods by the holy Sacrament which Aquinas justly condemns for Superstition The sixth Synod separates persons lawfully married upon an accusation and crime of heresie The Roman Council under Pope Nicolas II. defin'd that not onely the Sacrament of Christ's body but the very body itself of our blessed Saviour is handled and broke by the hands of the Priest and chewed by the teeth of the Communicants which is a manifest errour derogatory from the truth of Christ's beatificall Resurrection and glorification in the Heavens and disavowed by the Church of Rome it self But Bellarmine that answers all the Arguments in the world whether it be possible or not possible would fain make the matter fair and the Decree tolerable for says he the Decree means that the body is broken not in it self but in the sign and yet the Decree sayes that not onely the Sacrament which if any thing be is certainly the sign but the very body it self is broken and champed with hands and teeth respectively which indeed was nothing but a plain over-acting the Article in contradiction to Berengarius And the answer of Bellarmine is not sense for he denies that the body it self is broken in it self that was the errour we charged upon the Roman Synod and the sign abstracting from the body is not broken for that was the opinion that Council condemn'd in Berengarius but
Parents 9. Seventhly If the words were never so appropriate to Peter or also communicated to his Successors yet of what value will the consequent be what prerogative is entailed upon the Chair of Rome For that S. Peter was the Ministerial Head of the Church is the most that is desired to be proved by those and all other words brought for the same purposes and interests of that See Now let the Ministerial Head have what Dignity can be imagined let him be the first and in all Communities that are regular and orderly there must be something that is first upon certain occasions where an equal power cannot be exercised and made pompous or ceremonial But will this Ministerial Headship inferr an infallibility will it inferr more then the Headship of the Jewish Synagogue where clearly the High Priest was supreme in many senses yet in no sense infallible will it inferr more to us then it did amongst the Apostles amongst whom if for order's sake S. Peter was the first yet he had no compulsory power over the Apostles there was no such thing spoke of nor any such thing put in practice And that the other Apostles were by a personal privilege as infallible as himself is no reason to hinder the exercise of jurisdiction or any compulsory power over them for though in Faith they were infallible yet in manners and matter of fact as likely to erre as S. Peter himself was and certainly there might have something happened in the whole Colledge that might have been a Record of his Authority by transmitting an example of the exercise of some Judicial power over some one of them If he had but withstood any of them to their faces as S. Paul did him it had been more then yet is said in his behalf Will the Ministerial Headship inferr any more then that when the Church in a Community or a publick capacity should do any Act of Ministery Ecclesiasticall he shall be first in Order Suppose this to be a dignity to preside in Councils which yet was not always granted him suppose it to be a power of taking cognizance of the Major Causes of Bishops when Councils cannot be called suppose it a double voice or the last decisive or the negative in the causes exteriour suppose it to be what you will of dignity or externall regiment which when all Churches were united in Communion and neither the interest of States nor the engagement of opinions had made disunion might better have been acted then now it can yet this will fall infinitely short of a power to determine Controversies infallibly and to prescribe to all mens faith and consciences A Ministerial Headship or the prime Minister cannot in any capacity become the foundation of the Church to any such purpose And therefore men are causelesly amused with such premisses and are afraid of such Conclusions which will never follow from the admission of any sense of these words that can with any probability be pretended 10. Eighthly I consider that these Arguments from Scripture are too weak to support such an Authority which pretends to give Oracles and to answer infallibly in Questions of Faith because there is greater reason to believe the Popes of Rome have erred and greater certainty of demonstration then these places give that they are infallible as will appear by the instances and perpetual experiment of their being deceived of which there is no Question but of the sense of these places there is And indeed if I had as clear Scripture for their infallibility as I have against their half Communion against their Service in an unknown tongue worshipping of Images and divers other Articles I would make no scruple of believing but limit and conform my understanding to all their Dictates and believe it reasonable all Prophesying should be restrained But till then I have leave to discourse and to use my reason And to my reason it seems not likely that neither Christ nor any of his Apostles not S. Peter himself not S. Paul writing to the Church of Rome should speak the least word or tittle of the infallibility of their Bishops for it was certainly as convenient to tell us of a remedy as to foretell that certainly there must needs be heresies and need of a remedy And it had been a certain determination of the Question if when so rare an opportunity was ministred in the Question about Circumcision that they should have sent to Peter who for his infallibility in ordinary and his power of Headship would not onely with reason enough as being infallibly assisted but also for his Authority have best determined the Question if at least the first Christians had known so profitable and so excellent a secret And although we have but little Record that the first Council at Jerusalem did much observe the solennities of Law and the forms of Conciliary proceedings and the Ceremonials yet so much of it as is recorded is against them S. James and not S. Peter gave the final sentence and although S. Peter determined the Question pro libertate yet S. James made the Decree and the Assumentum too and gave sentence they should abstain from some things there mentioned which by way of temper he judged most expedient And so it passed And S. Peter shewed no sign of a Superiour Authority nothing of Superiour jurisdiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 11. So that if the Question be to be determined by Scripture it must either be ended by plain places or by obscure Plain places there are none and these that are with greatest fancy pretended are expounded by Antiquity to contrary purposes But if obscure places be all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by what means shall we infallibly find the sense of them The Pope's interpretation though in all other cases it might be pretended in this cannot for it is the thing in Question and therefore cannot determine for itself Either therefore we have also another infallible guide besides the Pope and so we have two Foundations and two Heads for this as well as the other upon the same reason or else which is indeed the truth there is no infallible way to be infallibly assured that the Pope is infallible Now it being against the common condition of men above the pretences of all other Governours Ecclesiasticall against the Analogie of Scripture and the deportment of the other Apostles against the Oeconomy of the Church and S. Peter's own entertainment the presumption lies against him and these places are to be left to their prime intentions and not put upon the rack to force them to confess what they never thought 12. But now for Antiquity if that be deposed in this Question there are so many circumstances to be considered to reconcile their words and their actions that the process is more troublesome then the Argument can be concluding or the matter considerable But I shall a little consider it so far at least as to shew either Antiquity said
but alter his Opinion whereby he is perswaded that such an accident that afflicts him is an evil and such an object formidable let him but believe himself impregnable or that he receives a benefit when he is plundered disgraced imprisoned condemned and afflicted neither his steps need to be disturbed nor his quietness discomposed But if a man cannot change his Opinion when he lists nor ever does heartily or resolutely but when he cannot doe otherwise then to use force may make him an Hypocrite but never to be a right Believer and so in stead of erecting a trophee to God and true Religion we build a monument for the Devil Infinite examples are recorded in Church-story to this very purpose But Socrates instances in one for all for when Eleusius Bishop of Cyzicum was threatned by the Emperour Valens with banishment and confiscation if he did not subscribe to the Decree of Ariminum at last he yielded to the Arian Opinion and presently fell into great torment of Conscience openly at Cyzicum recanted the errour asked God and the Church forgiveness and complained of the Emperour's injustice and that was all the good the Arian party got by offering violence to his Conscience And so many families in Spain which are as they call them new Christians and of a suspected Faith into which they were forced by the tyranny of the Inquisition and yet are secret Moors are evidence enough of the inconvenience of preaching a Doctrine in ore gladii cruentandi For it either punishes a man for keeping a good Conscience or forces him into a bad it either punishes sincerity or perswades hypocrisie it persecutes a truth or drives into errour and it teaches a man to dissemble and to be safe but never to be honest 12. Ninthly It is one of the glories of Christian Religion that it was so pious excellent miraculous and perswasive that it came in upon its own piety and wisedome with no other force but a torrent of arguments and demonstration of the Spirit a mighty rushing wind to beat down all strong holds and every high thought and imagination but towards the persons of men it was always full of meekness and charity compliance and toleration condescention and bearing with one another restoring persons overtaken with an errour in the spirit of meekness considering lest we also be tempted The consideration is as prudent and the proposition as just as the precept is charitable and the precedent was pious and holy Now things are best conserved with that which gives it the first being and which is agreeable to its temper and constitution That precept which it chiefly preaches in order to all the blessedness in the world that is of meekness mercy and charity should also preserve itself and promote its own interest For indeed nothing will doe it so well nothing doth so excellently insinuate itself into the understandings and affections of men as when the actions and perswasions of a Sect and every part and principle and promotion are univocall And it would be a mighty disparagement to so glorious an Institution that in its principle it should be mercifull and humane and in the promotion and propagation of it so inhumane And it would be improbable and unreasonable that the sword should be used in the perswasion of one Proposition and yet in the perswasion of the whole Religion nothing like it To doe so may serve the end of a temporal Prince but never promote the honour of Christ's Kingdom it may secure a design of Spain but will very much disserve Christendom to offer to support it by that which good men believe to be a distinctive cognizance of the Mahometan Religion from the excellency and piety of Christianity whose sense and spirit is described in those excellent words of Saint Paul 2 Tim. 2.24 The servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging the truth They that oppose themselves must not be strucken by any of God's servants and if yet any man will smite these who are his opposites in Opinion he will get nothing by that he must quit the title of being a servant of God for his pains And I think a distinction of persons Secular and Ecclesiasticall will doe no advantage for an escape because even the Secular power if it be Christian and a servant of God must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I mean in those cases where meekness of instruction is the remedy or if the case be irremediable abscission by Censures is the penalty 13. Tenthly And if yet in the nature of the thing it were neither unjust nor unreasonable yet there is nothing under God Almighty that hath power over the Soul of man so as to command a perswasion or to judge a disagreeing Humane positive Laws direct all externall acts in order to several ends and the Judges take cognizance accordingly but no man can command the Will or punish him that obeys the Law against his will for because its end is served in externall obedience it neither looks after more neither can it be served by more nor take notice of any more And yet possibly the Understanding is less subject to humane power then the Will for that humane power hath a command over externall acts which naturally and regularly flow from the Will ut plurimùm suppose a direct act of will but always either a direct or indirect volition primâ—ry or accidental but the Understanding is a natural faculty subject to no command but where the command is itself a reason fit to satisfie perswade it And therefore God commanding us to believe such Revelations perswades and satisfies the understanding by his commanding and revealing for there is no greater probation in the world that Proposition is true then because God hath commanded us to believe it But because no man's command is a satisfaction to the understanding or a verification of the Proposition therefore the understanding is not subject to humane Authority They may perswade but not injoyn where God hath not and where God hath if it appears so to him he is an Infidel if he does not believe it And if all men have no other efficacy or authority on the understanding but by perswasion proposal and intreaty then a man is bound to assent but according to the operation of the argument and the energy of perswasion neither indeed can he though he would never so fain and he that out of fear and too much compliance and desire to be safe shall desire to bring his understanding with some luxation to the belief of humane Dictates and Authorities may as often miss of the Truth as hit it but is sure always to lose the comfort of Truth because he believes it upon indirect insufficient and incompetent arguments and as his desire it should be so is his best argument that it is so so the
not also serve their own ends in giving their Princes such untoward counsel but we find the Laws made severally to several purposes in divers cases and with different severity Constantine the Emperour made a Sanction Vt parem cum fidelibus ii qui errant pacis quietis fruitionem gaudentes accipiant The Emperour Gratian decreed Vt quam quisque vellet religionem sequeretur conventus Ecclesiasticos semoto metu omnes agerent But he excepted the Manichees the Photinians and Eunomians Theodosius the elder made a law of death against the Anabaptists of his time and banished Eunomius and against other erring persons appointed a pecuniary mulct but he did no executions so severe as his sanctions to shew they were made in terrorem onely So were the Laws of Valentinian and Martian decreeing contra omnes qui prava docere tentant that they should be put to death so did Michael the Emperour but Justinian onely decreed banishment 13. But whatever whispers some Politicks might make to their Princes as the wisest and holiest did not think it lawfull for Churchmen alone to doe executions so neither did they transmit such persons to the Secular judicature And therefore when the Edict of Macedonius the President was so ambiguous that it seemed to threaten death to Hereticks unless they recanted S. Austin admonished him carefully to provide that no Heretick should be put to death alledging it not onely to be unchristian but illegal also and not warranted by Imperial constitutions for before his time no Laws were made for their being put to death but however he prevailed that Macedonius published another Edict more explicite and lesse seemingly severe But in his Epistle to Donatus the African Proconsul he is more confident and determinate Necessitate nobis impactâ indictâ ut potiùs occîdi ab eis eligamus quà m eos occidendos vestris judiciis ingeramus 14. But afterwards many got a trick of giving them over to the Secular power which at the best is no better then Hypocrisie removing envy from themselves and laying it upon others a refusing to doe that in externall act which they doe in counsel and approbation which is a transmitting the act to another and retaining a proportion of guilt unto themselves even their own and the others too I end this with the saying of Chrysostome Dogmata impia quae ab haereticis profecta sunt arguere anathematizare oportet hominibus autem parcendum pro salute eorum orandum SECT XV. How far the Church or Governours may act to the restraining false or differing Opinions BUT although Hereticall persons are not to be destroyed yet Heresie being a work of the flesh and all Hereticks criminal persons whose acts and Doctrine have influence upon Communities of men whether Ecclesiasticall or civil the Governours of the Republick or Church respectively are to doe their duties in restraining those mischiefs which may happen to their several charges for whose indemnity they are answerable And therefore according to the effect or malice of the Doctrine or the person so the cognizance of them belongs to several Judicatures If it be false Doctrine in any capacity and doth mischief in any sense or teaches ill life in any instance or encourages evil in any particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these men must be silenced they must be convinced by sound Doctrine and put to silence by spiritual evidence and restrained by Authority Ecclesiasticall that is by spiritual Censures according as it seems necessary to him who is most concern'd in the regiment of the Church For all this we have precept and precedent Apostolicall and much reason For by thus doing the Governour of the Church uses all that Authority that is competent and all the means that is reasonable and that proceeding which is regular that he may discharge his cure and secure his flock And that he possibly may be deceived in judging a Doctrine to be hereticall and by consequence the person excommunicate suffers injury is no argument against the reasonableness of the proceeding For all the injury that is is visible and in appearance and so is his crime Judges must judge according to their best reason guided by Law of God as their Rule and by evidence and appearance as their best instrument and they can judge no better If the Judges be good and prudent the errour of proceeding will not be great nor ordinary and there can be no better establishment of humane judicature then is a fallible proceeding upon an infallible ground And if the judgement of Heresie be made by estimate and proportion of the Opinion to a good or a bad life respectively supposing an errour in the deduction there will be no malice in the conclusion and that he endeavours to secure piety according to the best of his understanding and yet did mistake in his proceeding is onely an argument that he did his duty after the manner of men possibly with the piety of a Saint though not with the understanding of an Angel And the little inconvenience that happens to the person injuriously judged is abundantly made up in the excellency of the Discipline the goodnesse of the example the care of the publick and all those great influences into the manners of men which derive from such an act so publickly consign'd But such publick judgement in matters of Opinion must be seldome and curious and never but to secure piety and a holy life for in matters speculative as all determinations are fallible so scarce any of them are to purpose nor ever able to make compensation of either side either for the publick fraction or the particular injustice if it should so happen in the censure 2. But then as the Church may proceed thus far yet no Christian man or Community of men may proceed farther For if they be deceived in their judgement and censure and yet have passed onely spiritual censures they are totally ineffectual and come to nothing there is no effect remaining upon the Soul and such censures are not to meddle with the body so much as indirectly But if any other judgement passe upon persons erring such judgements whose effects remain if the person be unjustly censured nothing will answer and make compensation for such injuries If a person be excommunicate unjustly it will doe him no hurt but if he be killed or dismembred unjustly that censure and infliction is not made ineffectual by his innocence he is certainly killed and dismembred So that as the Churche's Authority in such cases so restrained and made prudent cautelous and orderly is just and competent so the proceeding is reasonable it is provident for the publick and the inconveniences that may fall upon particulars so little as that the publick benefit makes ample compensation so long as the proceeding is but spiritual 3. This discourse is in the case of such Opinions which by the former rules are formal Heresies and upon practicall inconveniences But
act of which by nature they have the faculty so if it did yet Baptism is not the means of conveying the Holy Ghost For that which Peter says Be baptized and ye shall receive the holy Ghost signifies no more then this First be baptized and then by imposition of the Apostles hands which was another mysterie and rite ye shall receive the Promise of the Father And this is nothing but an insinuation of the rite of Confirmation as is to this sense expounded by divers ancient Authours and in ordinary ministery the effect of it is not bestowed upon any unbaptized persons for it is in order next after Baptism and upon this ground Peter's Argument in the case of Cornelius was concluding enough à majori ad minus thus the Holy Ghost was bestowed upon him and his family which gift by ordinary ministery was consequent to Baptism not as the effect is to the cause or to the proper instrument but as a consequent is to an antecedent in a chain of causes accidentally and by positive institution depending upon each other God by that miracle did give testimony that the persons of the men were in great dispositions towards Heaven and therefore were to be admitted to those Rites which are the ordinary inlets into the Kingdome of Heaven But then from hence to argue that wherever there is a capacity of receiving the same grace there also the same sign is to be ministred and from hence to infer Paedo baptism is an Argument very fallacious upon several grounds First because Baptism is not the sign of the Holy Ghost but by another mystery it was conveyed ordinarily and extraordinarily it was conveyed independently from any mystery and so the Argument goes upon a wrong supposition Secondly if the supposition were true the proposition built upon it is false for they that are capable of the same grace are not always capable of the same sign for women under the Law of Moses although they were capable of the righteousness of Faith yet they were not capable of the sign of Circumcision For God does not always convey his graces in the same manner but to some mediately to others immediately and there is no better instance in the world of it then the gift of the Holy Ghost which is the thing now instanced in this contestation for it is certain in Scripture that it was ordinarily given by imposition of hands and that after Baptism and when this came into an ordinary ministry it was called by the ancient Church Chrism or Confirmation but yet it was given sometimes without imposition of hands as at Pentecost and to the family of Cornelius sometimes before Baptism sometimes after sometimes in conjunction with it 22. And after all this lest these Arguments should not ascertain their Cause they fall on complaining against God and will not be content with God unless they may baptize their children but take exceptions that God did more for the children of the Jews But why so Because God made a Covenant with their children actually as Infants and consigned it by Circumcision Well so he did with our children too in their proportion He made a Covenant of spiritual Promises on his part and spiritual and real services on ours and this pertains to children when they are capable but made with them as soon as they are alive and yet not so with the Jews babes for as their Rite consigned them actually so it was a national and temporal blessing and Covenant as a separation of them from the portion of the Nations a marking them for a peculiar people and therefore while they were in the wilderness and separate from the commixture of all people they were not at all circumcised but as that Rite did seal the righteousness of Faith so by virtue of its adherencie and remanency in their flesh it did that work when the children came to age But in Christian Infants the case is otherwise for the new Covenant being established upon better Promises is not onely to better purposes but also in distinct manner to be understood when their spirits are as receptive of a spiritual act or impress as the bodies of Jewish children were of the sign of Circumcision then it is to be consigned But this business is quickly at an end by saying that God hath done no less for ours then for their children for he will doe the mercies of a Father and Creatour to them and he did no more to the other But he hath done more to ours for he hath made a Covenant with them and built it upon Promises of the greatest concernment he did not so to them But then for the other part which is the main of the Argument that unless this mercy be consigned by Baptism as good not at all in respect of us because we want the comfort of it this is the greatest vanity in the world For when God hath made a Promise pertaining also to our children for so our Adversaries contend and we also acknowledge in its true sense shall not this promise this word of God be of sufficient truth certainty and efficacy to cause comfort unless we tempt God and require a sign of him May not Christ say to these men as sometime to the Jews A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign but no sign shall be given unto it But the truth on 't is this Argument is nothing but a direct quarrelling with God Almighty 23. Now since there is no strength in the Doctrinal part the practice and precedents Apostolical and Ecclesiastical will be of less concernment if they were true as is pretended because actions Apostolical are not always Rules for ever it might be fit for them to doe it pro loco tempore as divers others of their Institutions but yet no engagement past thence upon following Ages for it might be convenient at that time in the new spring of Christianity and till they had engaged a considerable party by that means to make them parties against the Gentiles Superstition and by way of pre-occupation to ascertain them to their own Sect when they came to be men or for some other reason not transmitted to us because the Question of fact itself is not sufficiently determined For the insinuation of that precept of baptizing all Nations of which Children certainly are a part does as little advantage as any of the rest because other parallel expressions of Scripture do determine and expound themselves to a sense that includes not all persons absolutely but of a capable condition as Adorate eum omnes gentes psallite Deo omnes nationes terrae and divers more 24. As for the conjecture concerning the family of Stephanus at the best it is but a conjecture and besides that it is not proved that there were children in the family yet if that were granted it follows not that they were baptized because by whole families in Scripture is meant all persons of reason and age within the
receptive of any interpretation rather then the Commonwealth be disarmed of its necessary supports and all Laws made ineffectual and impertinent For the interest of the Republick and the well being of Bodies politick is not to depend upon the nicety of our imaginations or the fancies of any peevish or mistaken Priests and there is no reason a Prince should ask John-a-Brunck whether his understanding would give him leave to reign and be a King Nay suppose there were divers places of Scripture which did seemingly restrain the politicall use of the Sword yet since the avoiding a personal inconvenience hath by all men been accounted sufficient reason to expound Scripture to any sense rather then the literal which infers an unreasonable inconvenience and therefore the pulling out an eye and the cutting off a hand is expounded by mortifying a vice and killing a criminal habit much rather must the Allegations against the power of the Sword endure any sense rather then it should be thought that Christianity should destroy that which is the onely instrument of Justice the restraint of vice and support of Bodies politick It is certain that Christ and his Apostles and Christian Religion did comply with the most absolute Government and the most imperial that was then in the world and it could not have been at all endured in the world if it had not for indeed the world itself could not last in regular and orderly communities of men but be a perpetuall confusion if Princes and the Supreme power in Bodies politick were not armed with a coercive power to punish malefactors the publick necessity and universal experience of all the world convinces those men of being most unreasonable that make such pretences which destroy all Laws and all Communities and the bands of civil Societies and leave it arbitrary to every vain or vicious person whether men shall be safe or Laws be established or a murtherer hanged or Princes rule So that in this case men are not so much to dispute with particular Arguments as to consider the interest and concernment of Kingdoms and publick Societies For the Religion of Jesus Christ is the best establisher of the felicity of private persons and of publick Communities it is a Religion that is prudent and innocent humane and reasonable and brought infinite advantages to mankind but no inconvenience nothing that is unnatural or unsociable or unjust And if it be certain that this world cannot be governed without Laws and Laws without a compulsory signifie nothing then it is certain that it is no good Religion that teaches Doctrine whose consequents will destroy all Government and therefore it is as much to be rooted out as any thing that is the greatest pest and nuisance to the publick interest And that we may guess at the purposes of the men and the inconvenience of such Doctrine these men that did first intend by their Doctrine to disarm all Princes and Bodies politick did themselves take up arms to establish their wild and impious fancy And indeed that Prince or Commonwealth that should be perswaded by them would be exposed to all the insolencies of forreiners and all mutinies of the Teachers themselves and the Governours of the people could not doe that duty they owe to their people of protecting them from the rapine and malice which will be in the world as long as the world is And therefore here they are to be restrained from preaching such Doctrine if they mean to preserve their Government and the necessity of the thing will justifie the lawfulness of the thing If they think it to themselves that cannot be helped so long it is innocent as much as concerns the publick but if they preach it they may be accounted Authours of all the consequent inconveniences and punisht accordingly No Doctrine that destroys Government is to be endured For although those Doctrines are not always good that serve the private ends of Princes or the secret designs of State which by reason of some accidents or imperfections of men may be promoted by that which is false and pretending yet no Doctrine can be good that does not comply with the formality of Government itself and the well-being of Bodies politick Augur cùm esset Cato dicere usus est optimis auspiciis ea geri quae pro Reipub. salute gererentur quae contra Rempub fierent contra auspicia fieri Religion is to meliorate the condition of a people not to doe it disadvantage and therefore those Doctrines that inconvenience the publick are no parts of good Religion Vt Respub salva sit is a necessary consideration in the permission of Prophesyings for according to the true solid and prudent ends of the Republick so is the Doctrine to be permitted or restrained and the men that preach it according as they are good subjects and right Commonwealths-men For Religion is a thing superinduced to temporal Government and the Church is an addition of a capacity to a Commonwealth and therefore is in no sense to disserve the necessity and just interests of that to which it is superadded for its advantage and conservation 2. And thus by a proportion to the rules of these instances all their other Doctrines â—re to have their judgement as concerning Toleration or restraint for all are either speculative or practicall they are consistent with the publick ends or inconsistent they teach impiety or they are innocent and they are to be permitted or rejected accordingly For in the Question of Toleration the foundation of Faith good life and Government is to be secured in all other cases the former considerations are effectuall SECT XX. How far the Religion of the Church of Rome is tolerable 1. BUT now concerning the Religion of the Church of Rome which was the other instance I promised to consider we will proceed another way and not consider the truth or falsity of the Doctrines for that is not the best way to determine this Question concerning permitting their Religion or Assemblies Because that a thing is not true is not Argument sufficient to conclude that he that believes it true is not to be endured but we are to consider what inducements they are that possess the understanding of those men whether they be reasonable and innocent sufficient to abuse or perswade wise and good men or whether the Doctrines be commenced upon design and managed with impiety and then have effects not to be endured 2. And here first I consider that those Doctrines that have had long continuance and possession in the Church cannot easily be supposed in the present professors to be a design since they have received it from so many Ages and it is not likely that all Ages should have the same purposes or that the same Doctrine should serve the severall ends of divers Ages But however long prescription is a prejudice oftentimes so insupportable that it cannot with many Arguments be retrenched as relying upon these grounds that Truth is more
if he had not been rescued by the Civil Power But men have too much neglected all the ministeries of Grace and this most especially and have not given themselves to a right understanding of it and so neglected it yet more But because the prejudice which these parts of the Christian Church have suffered for want of it is very great as will appear by enumeration of the many and great Blessings consequent to it I am not without hope that it may be a service acceptable to God and an useful ministery to the Souls of my Charges if by instructing them that know not and exhorting them that know I set forward the practice of this Holy Rite and give reasons why the people ought to love it and to desire it and how they are to understand and practise it and consequently with what dutious affections they are to relate to those persons whom God hath in so special and signal manner made to be for their good and eternal benefit the Ministers of the Spirit and Salvation S. Bernard in the Life of S. Malachias my Predecessor in the See of Down and Connor reports that it was the care of that good Prelate to renew the rite of Confirmation in his Diocese where it had been long neglected and gone into desuetude It being too much our case in Ireland I find the same necessity and am oblig'd to the same procedure for the same reason and in pursuance of so excellent an example Hoc enim est Evangelizare Christum said S. Austin non tantùm docere quae sunt dicenda de Christo sed etiam quae observanda ei qui accedit ad compagem corporis Christi For this is to preach the Gospel not only to teach those things which are to be said of Christ but those also which are to be observed by every one who desires to be confederated into the Society of the Body of Christ which is his Church that is not only the doctrines of good Life but the Mysteries of Godliness and the Rituals of Religion which issue from a Divine fountain are to be declar'd by him who would fully preach the Gospel In order to which performance I shall declare 1. The Divine Original Warranty and Institution of the Holy Rite of Confirmation 2. That this Rite was to be a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministration 3. That it was actually continued and practised by all the succeeding Ages of the purest and Primitive Churches 4. That this Rite was appropriate to the Ministery of Bishops 5. That Prayer and Imposition of the Bishop's hands did make the whole Ritual and though other things were added yet they were not necessary or any thing of the Institution 6. That many great Graces and Blessings were consequent to the worthy reception and due ministration of it 7. I shall add something of the manner of Preparation to it and Reception of it SECT I. Of the Divine Original Warranty and Institution of the Holy Rite of Confirmation IN the Church of Rome they have determin'd Confirmation to be a Sacrament proprii nominis properly and really and yet their Doctors have some of them at least been paulò iniquiores a little unequal and unjust to their proposition insomuch that from themselves we have had the greatest opposition in this Article Bonacina and Henriquez allow the proposition but make the Sacrament to be so unnecessary that a little excuse may justifie the omission and almost neglect of it And Loemelius and Daniel à Jesu and generally the English Jesuits have to serve some ends of their own Family and Order disputed it almost into contempt that by representing it as unnecessary they might do all the ministeries Ecclesiastical in England without the assistance of Bishops their Superiors whom they therefore love not because they are so But the Theological Faculty of Paris have condemn'd their Doctrine as temerarious and savouring of Heresie and in the later Schools have approv'd rather the Doctrine of Gamachaeus Estius Kellison and Bellarmine who indeed do follow the Doctrine of the most Eminent persons in the Ancient School Richard of Armagh Scotus Hugo Cavalli and Gerson the Learned Chancellor of Paris who following the Old Roman order Amalarius and Albinus do all teach Confirmation to be of great and pious Use of Divine Original and to many purposes necessary according to the Doctrine of the Scriptures and the Primitive Church Whether Confirmation be a Sacrament of no is of no use to dispute and if it be disputed it can never be prov'd to be so as Baptism and the Lord's Supper that is as generally necessary to Salvation but though it be no Sacrament it cannot follow that it is not of very great Use and holiness and as a Man is never the less tied to Repentance though it be no Sacrament so neither is he ever the less oblig'd to receive Confirmation though it be as it ought acknowledg'd to be of an Use and Nature inferior to the two Sacraments of Divine direct and immediate institution It is certain that the Fathers in a large Symbolical and general sence call it a Sacrament but mean not the same thing by that word when they apply it to Confirmation as they do when they apply it to Baptism and the Lord's Supper That it is an excellent and Divine Ordinance to purposes Spiritual that it comes from God and ministers in our way to God that is all we are concern'd to inquire after and this I shall endeavour to prove not only against the Jesuits but against all Opponents of what side soever My First Argument from Scripture is what I learn from Optatus and S. Cyril Optatus writing against the Donatists hath these words Christ descended into the water not that in him who is God was any thing that could be made cleaner but that the water was to precede the future Vnction for the initiating and ordaining and fulfilling the mysteries of Baptism He was wash'd when he was in the hands of John then followed the order of the mystery and the Father finish'd what the Son did ask and what the Holy Ghost declar'd The Heavens were open'd God the Father anointed him the Spiritual Vnction presently descended in the likeness of a Dove and sate upon his head and was spred all over him and he was called the Christ when he was the anointed of the Father To whom also lest Imposition of hands should seem to be wanting the voice of God was heard from the cloud saying This is my Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him That which Optatus says is this that upon and in Christ's person Baptism Confirmation and Ordination were consecrated and first appointed He was Baptized by S. John he was Confirm'd by the Holy Spirit and anointed with Spiritual Unction in order to that great work of obedience to his Father's will and he was Consecrated by the voice of God from Heaven In all things Christ is the Head and the
and not Man first by Baptism and then by Confirmation first by Water and then by the Spirit The Primitive Church had this Notion so fully amongst them that the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions attributed to S. Clement who was S. Paul's Scholar affirms That a man is made a perfect Christian meaning Ritually and Sacramentally and by all exterior solemnity by the Water of Baptism and Confirmation of the Bishop and from these words of Christ now alledged derives the use and institution of the Rite of Confirmation The same sence of these words is given to us by S. Cyprian who intending to prove the insufficiency of one without the other says Tunc enim plenè Sanctificari esse Dei filii possunt si Sacramento utroque nascantur cùm scriptum sit Nisi quis natus fuerit ex aqua Spiritu non potest intrare in regnum Dei Then they may be fully Sanctified and become the Sons of God if they be born with both the Sacraments or Rites for it is written Vnless a man be born of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God The same also is the Commentary of Eusebius Emissenus and S. Austin tells That although some understand these words only of Baptism and others of the Spirit only viz. in Confirmation yet others and certainly much better understand utrumque Sacramentum both the Mysteries of Confirmation as well as Baptism Amalarius Fortunatus brings this very Text to reprove them that neglect the Episcopal Imposition of Hands Concerning them who by negligence lose the Bishop's presence and receive not the Imposition of his Hands it is to be considered lest in justice they be condemned in which they exercise Justice negligently because they ought to make haste to the Imposition of Hands because Christ said Vnless a man be born again of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God And as he said this so also he said Vnless your Righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven To this I foresee two Objections may be made First That Christ did not institute Confirmation in this place because Confirmation being for the gift of the Holy Ghost who was to come upon none of the Apostles till Jesus was glorified these words seem too early for the consigning an Effect that was to be so long after and a Rite that could not be practised till many intermedial events should happen So said the Evangelist The Holy Ghost was come upon none of them because Jesus was not yet glorified intimating that this great Effect was to be in after-time and it is not likely that the Ceremony should be ordained before the Effect it self was ordered and provided for that the Solemnity should be appointed before provisions were made for the Mystery and that the outward which was wholly for the inward should be instituted before the inward and principal had its abode amongst us To this I answer First That it is no unusual thing for Christ gave the Sacrament of his Body before his Body was given the Memorial of his Death was instituted before his Death 2. Confirmation might here as well be instituted as Baptism and by the same reason that the Church from these words concludes the necessity of one she may also infer the designation of the other for the effect of Baptism was at that time no more produced than that of Confirmation Christ had not yet purchased to himself a Church he had not wrought remission of sins to all that believe on him the Death of Christ was not yet passed into which Death the Christian Church was to be Baptized 3. These words are so an institution of Confirmation as the sixth Chapter of S. John is of the blessed Eucharist It was designativa not ordinativa it was in design not in present command here it was preached but not reducible to practice till its proper season 4. It was like the words of Christ to S. Peter When thou art converted confirm thy Brethren Here the command was given but that Confirmation of his Brethren was to be performed in a time relative to a succeeding accident 5. It is certain that long before the event and Grace was given Christ did speak of the Spirit of Confirmation that Spirit which was to descend in Pentecost which all they were to receive who should believe on him which whosoever did receive out of his Belly should flow Rivers of Living Waters as is to be read in that place of S. John now quoted 6. This predesignation of the Holy Spirit of Confirmation was presently followed by some little antepast and donariola or little givings of the Spirit for our Blessed Saviour gave the Holy Ghost three several times First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obscurely and by intimation and secret vertue then when he sent them to heal the sick and anoint them with Oil in the Name of the Lord. Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more expresly and signally after the Resurrection when he took his leave of them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost And this was to give them a power of ministring Remission of sins and therefore related to Baptism and the ministeries of Repentance But Thirdly he gave it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more perfectly and this was the Spirit of Confirmation for he was not at all until now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says the Text The Holy Ghost was not yet So almost all the Greek Copies Printed and Manuscript and so S. Chrysostom Athanasius Cyril Ammonius in the Catena of the Greeks Leontius Theophylact Euthymius and all the Greek Fathers read it so S. Hierom and S. Austin among the Latines and some Latin Translations read it Our Translations read it The Holy Ghost was not yet given was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in them as some few Greek Copies read it but the meaning is alike Confirmation was not yet actual the Holy Spirit viz. of Confirmation was not yet come upon the Church but it follows not but he was long before promised designed and appointed spoken of and declared * The first of these Collations had the Ceremony of Chrism or Anointing joyned with it which the Church in process of time transferred into her use and ministery yet it is the last only that Christ passed into an Ordinance for ever it is this only which is the Sacramental consummation of our Regeneration in Christ for in this the Holy Spirit is not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 present by his power but present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Gregory Nazianzen expresses it to dwell with us to converse with us and to abide for ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so S. Paul describes this Spirit of Confirmation the Spirit which he hath poured forth upon us richly or plentifully that is in great measures and to the full consummation of the
n. 22. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. Church Neither it alone nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by substitution ibid. No Church-presidency ever given to the Laiety 114 § 36. Whether secular power can give prohibitions against the power of the Church 122. § 36. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops 148 § 45. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after secular imployments 157 § 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends 158 § 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it gradu impedimenti 159 § 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold-cares as secular imployment 160 § 49. Lay-Elders never had authority in the Church 165 § 51. What the Church signifieth 382 383. Wicked men are not true members of it 383. In what sense Saint Paul calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth 386 387. What truth that is of which the Church is the pillar 387. Whether the representative Church be infallible 389. The word Church is never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Of the meaning of that of our Lord Tell the Church 389. Of the notes of the Church 402. Scripture is more credible then the Church 407. Some rites which the Apostles injoyned the Christian Church does not now practise 430. The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to salvation 436. The Roman is not the Mother of all Churches 449. The authority of the Church of Rome they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. When in the question between the Church and the Scripture they distinguish between authority quoad nos in se it salves not the difficulty 451. Eckius's pitiful Argument to prove the authority of the Church to be above the Scripture 451. The Church is such a Judge of Controversies that they must all be decided before you can find him 1012. Success and worldly prosperity no note of the true Church 1018. Clemens Alexandrinus His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. In Vossius his opinion he understood not original sin 759 n. 20. Clergy The word Church never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Clinicks Objections against the repentance of Clinicks 678 n. 57. and 677 n. 56. and 679 n. 64. Heathens newly baptized if they die immediately need no other repentance ibid. The objection concerning the Thief on the Cross answered 681 n. 65. Testimonies of the Ancients against the repentance of Clinicks 682 n. 66. The way of treating sinners who repent not till their death-bed 695 n. 25. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of Clinicks 696 n. 29. What hopes penitent Clinicks have according to the opinion of the Fathers of the Church 696 697 n. 30. The manner how the ancient Church treated penitent Clinicks 699 n. 5. The particular acts and parts of repentance that are fittest for a dying man 700 n. 32. The practice of the Primitive Fathers about penitent Clinicks 804. The repentance of Clinicks 853 n. 96. Colossians Chap. 2.18 explained 781 n. 31. Commandment Of the difference between S. Augustine and S. Hierome in the proposition about the possibility of keeping God's Commandments 579 n. 30. Communicate To doe it in act or desire are not terms opposite but subordinate 190 § 3. Commutations When they were first set up 292. Amends may be made for some sins by a commutation of duties 648 68. Comparative Instances in Texts of Scripture wherein comparative and restrained negatives are set down in an absolute form 229 § 10. Concupiscence It is not a mortal sin till it proceeds farther 776 n. 20. It is an evil but not a sin 734 n. 84. It is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin 752 n. 11. Natural inclinations are but sins of infirmity 789 n. 50. Where it is not consented to it is no sin 752 n. 11. and 765 n. 30. and 767 n. 39. and 898 907 909 911 912 876. The natural inclination to evil that is in every man is not sin 766 n. 32. It is not original sin 911. The inconstancy of S. Augustine about it 913. Confession According to the Roman doctrine Confession does not restrain sin and quiets not the Conscience 315 § 2. c. 2. A right confesfession according to the Roman Doctrine is not possible 316 § 3. The seal of Confession they will not suffer to be broken if it be to save the life of the Prince or the whole State 343 c. 3. § 2. The Roman doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Nectarius abolished the custome of having sins published in the Church 474 488 492. That the seal of confession is broken among them upon divers great occasions 475. Whether to confess all our great sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation 477. Of the harmony of Confession made by the Reformed 899. Nothing of auricular confession to a Priest in Scripture 479. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for auricular confession 491. Auricular confession made an instrument to carry on unlawful plots 488 489. Father Arnold Confessor to Lewis XIII of France did cause the King in private confession to take such an oath as did in a manner depose him 489. Auricular confession leaves behind it an eternal scruple upon the Conscience 489. Auricular confession is an instance of the Romanists teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 477. Confession is a necessary act of repentance 830 n. 34. It is due to God 831. Why we are to confess sins to God who knoweth them before 832 n. 37. What properly is meant by it ibid. Auricular confession whence it descended 833 41. Confession to a Priest is no part of contrition ibid. The benefit of confessing to a Priest 834. Rules concerning the practice of confession 854 n. 100. Shame should not hinder confession 855 n. 104. A rule to be observed by the Minister that receiveth confession 856 n. 105. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister 857 n. 109. Confession in preparation to the Sacrament 857 n. 110. Confirmation It was not to expire with the age of the Apostles 53 § 8. Photius was the first that gave the power of Confirmation to Presbyters 109 § 33. The words Signator consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifie Baptismal unction 110 § 33. The great benefit and need of the rite of Confirmation in the Church Ep. ded to that Treatise pag. 2. The Latine Church would have sold the title of Confirmation to the Greek but they would not buy it Ep. ded pag. 5. The Papists hold Confirmation to be a Sacrament and yet not necessary 3. b. That it is a Divine Ordinance 3 4. b. Of the necessity of
Confirmation 8. b. That the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews speaking of laying on of hands meaneth Confirmation and not Absolution nor Ordination 10 11. b. It was to continue down to all ages of the Church 13 14. b. Confirmation proved by the Testimony of the Fathers and the practice of the Primitive Church 15. b. Of the authority of S. Ambrose and Pope Sylvester alledged to prove that Confirmation may be administred by Presbyters 19 20 ss 4. b. The difference between the Chrism of Confirmation and Baptism 20. b. Friers Regulars and Jesuites did in England challenge by Commission from the Pope a power of administring Confirmation though they were but Presbyters 21. b. The difference as to the use between Confirmation and Baptism 26. b. The blessings and graces usually conveyed by Episcopal Confirmation 25 26. b. The Ceremonies of it 24 25. b. Of the change made in us by it 28. b. Confirmation was usually administred at the same time with Baptism 29. b. The reason was because few were then baptized but adult persons ibid. The Apostles were not confirmed till after they had received the Sacrament of our Lord's Supper 30. b. Whether Confirmation be administred more opportunely in infancy or in our riper years 29 30. b. Whether it can be administred more then once 32. b. On what account the Primitive Christians did confirm hereticks reduced and reconciled 32. b. Conscience That authority is most effectual which is seated there 160 § 49. The Church of Rome arrogates to her self an Empire over Consciences 461. The niceties that every Ideot must trouble his Conscience with that worships Images in the way of the Romanists 548. How the religious man's Conscience is intangled by some modern errours that are allowed Pref. to Discourse of Repentance The contention between the flesh and conscience no sign of Regeneration 781 n. 31. How to know which prevails in this contention ibid. Consequent The manner of the Scripture is to include the consequent in the antecedent 679 n. 62. Consignare Of the sense of that word in the ancient Church 20. b. Contrition A description of Contrition 829 n. 28 29. The efficacy of it in repentance 670 n. 61. What it is 821 n. 5. The difference between it and Attrition 828. It must not be mistaken for a single act 829 n. 31. 1 Corinth Chap. 11. v. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 58 § 9. and 11.29 Eateth and drinketh unworthily explained 218 § 8. and 898. and 6.12 expl 619 n. 23. and 10.23 ibid. and 2.14 expl 723 n. 53. and 785 n. 44. and 11.27 expl 814 n. 59. 2 Corinth Chap. 15.21 expl 712 n. 15. and 12.21 expl 803 n. 12. and 1.21 22. Now he which confirmeth us and hath anointed and sealed expl 28. b. Corporal Austerities Or penances 858 n. 111. They are not simply necessary ibid. Corporal Afflictions are not of repentance 846 n. 75. How they are to be used 846 847 n. 76 77. The Primitive Christians did not believe them simply necessary 847 n. 78 79. Covenant Reasons why with a Covenant of works God began this intercourse with man 575. The opposition between the new and old Covenant is not in respect of faith and works 588 n. 7. Councils Presbyters had not the power of voting in them 136 § 41. That of Basil was the first in which Presbyters in their own right were admitted to vote 136 § 41. Presbyters as such did not vote in that first Oecumenical Council Act. 15. p. 137 § 41. The people had de facto no vote in that Council ibid. The sixth Canon of the Council of Sevil objected and explained 147 § 44. Aërius was never condemned by any general Council 150 § 48. In the first council of Constantinople he is declared an heretick that believes right but separates from his Bishop 151 § 48. The Ephesine Council did decree against enlarging Creeds 290 c. 1. § 2. The Council of Trent decreed a Proposition in matter of fact that was past 290. c. 1. § 2. The Council of Trent binds all its subjects to give to the Sacrament of the Altar the same worship which they give to God himself 267 § 13. The Council of Constance decreed the half Communion with a non obstante to our Lord's institution 302 c. 1. § 6. The authority of a general Council against publick prayers in an unknown tongue 304. The Council of Eliberis and the Synod of Francford were against the worship of Images 306. The Council of Chalcedon did by decree give to the Bishop of Constantinople equal privileges with Rome 310. A Pope accused in the Lateran Council for not being in Orders 325 c. 2. § 7. Even among the Romanists the authority of general Councils is but precarious 391. Hard to tell which are General Councils 392 393. The last Lateran Council is at Rome esteemed a general Council but in France and Germany none at all 392. General Councils not infallible 392. Instances of General Councils that have been condemned by the succeeding 393. How to know which are General Councils 393. It cannot be known who have voices in Councils who not 394. The Laiety were sometime admitted to vote in Councils 394 395. What if two parties call each their Council 395. How shall the decision be in a Council if the Bishops be divided in their opinions 395. Who hath power to call a general Council 395. Of a general Council confirmed by the Pope 395. A general Council in many cases cannot have the Pope's confirmation 396. Whether the Pope be above a Council 396. The Divinity of the H. Ghost was not decreed in the Council of Nice 424. The questions that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. How many of the Orthodox did begin to comply with the Arians about the Council of Ariminum 441. The definitions of general Councils were not so binding in the Primitive Church 441. The Councils of Nice and Chalcedon did decree against enlarging Creeds ibid. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in the behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. What passed in the Lateran Council concerning Transubstantiation 519. Neither Transubstantiation nor any thing else was in the Lateran Council decreed 519. The same Council that decreed Transubstantiation made Rebellion the duty of subjects 520. Of the second Council of Nice and that of Francford and the Capitular of Charles the Great 540 541. Of the testimony of the Eliberitane Council against Images 538. Of the Council of the Apostles held at Jerusalem mentioned Act. 15. p. 948 n. 3. Of Councils Ecclesiastical 948 § 6. per tot Concilium Sinuessanum a forged one 991 n. 9. Reasons why decrees of Councils in defining controversies lay no obligation 986 987 988 989 ad fin sect Saint Augustine teacheth that the decrees of general Councils are as much subject to amendment as the letters of private Bishops 991 n. 8. The Roman Council under
Pope Nicholas II. defined the Capernaitical sense of Transubstantiation 992 n. 10. Gregory Nazianzen's opinion concerning Episcopal Councils in his time 993. Creed The Ephesine Council did decree against enlarging Creeds 290 c. 1. § 2. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new Articles as necessarily to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Article of Christ's descent into Hell omitted in some Creeds 440. What stir it made in the Primitive Church to add but one word to the Creed though it were done onely by way of Explication 440. The Fathers complained of the dismal troubles in the Church upon enlarging Creeds 441. The addition to the Creed at Nice produced above thirty explicative Creeds soon after 441. The Councils of Nice and Chalcedon did decree against enlarging Creeds 441. They did not forbid onely things contrary but even explicative additions 441 442. The imperial Edict of Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius considered and the argument from it answered 443. The sense of that Article in the Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church 448. The Romanists have corrupted the Creed by restraining that Article to the Roman Church 448. The end of making Creeds 942 n. 7. and 960 n. 30. They are the standard by which Heresie is tried 957 n. 22. The article of Christ's descent into Hell was not in the ancient copies of the Creed 943 n. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How this word is sometimes used in Scripture 885 887 888 889 902. Saint Cyprian His authorities alledged in behalf of the Presbyters and people's interest in governing the Church answered 145 146 § 44. He did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters ibid. A Text of Saint Cyprian contrary to the Supremacy of Saint Peter's successors 155 § 48. His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. The Sermons de coena Domini usually imputed to him are not his but seem to be the works of Arnoldus de Bona villa 680 n. 64. and 259 § 1◠He affirms that Pope Steven had not superiority of power over Bishops of forrein Dioceses 310. When Pope Stephen decreed against Saint Cyprian in the point of rebaptizing hereticks Saint Cyprian regarded it not nor changed his opinion 399. Saint Cyprian against Purgatory 513 514. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. He for his errour about rebaptization was no heretick but his Scholars were 957 958 n. 22. When Pope Stephen excommunicated him Saint Cyprian was thought the better Catholick 957 n. 22. Cyril His testimony alledged that the bread in the Eucharist is not bread answered fully 229 § 10. His testimony against the worship of Images 306. D. Damnation HOW this word and the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sometimes used in Scripture 885 898 902. Deacon He might in the ancient Church give absolution 484. Death How to treat a dying man being in despair 677 n. 56. In Spain they execute not a condemned criminal till his Confessour give him a bene discessit 678 n. 56. Deathbed-repentance How secure and easie some make it 567. Delegation Saint Paul made delegation of his power 163 § 50. Other examples of like delegation 164 § 50. Demonstration Silhon thinks a moral Demonstration to be the best way of proving the immortality of the soul 357. Demonstration is not needful but where there is an aequilibrium of probabilities 362. Probability is as good as demonstration where there is no shew of reason against it 362. Of moral demonstration what it is 368 369. Despair A caution to be observed by them that minister comfort to those that are nigh to despair 852 n. 95. and 677. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of penitent Clinicks 696 n. 29. Devil The manner of casting him out by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of the word 635 n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the use and signification of those words 903. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning thereof 639 n. 15. Diocese Episcopal Dioceses in the primitive notion of them had no subordination and distinction of Parishes 140 § 43. Which was first a particular Congregation or a Diocese 141 § 43. Dionysius Areopagita His authority against Transubstantiation 266 § 12. His testimony against Purgatory 513 514. Disputing Two brothers the one a Protestant the other a Papist disputed to convert one another and in the event each of them converted the other 460. Division Of the Divisions in the Church of Rome 403. Doctrine Oral tradition was not usefull to convey Doctrines 354 355 358. What is meant by that reproof our Lord gave the Pharisees of teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 471 472. The Romanists doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Durandus His opinion in the question of Transubstantiation 520. E. Ecclesiastes Chap. 5.2 And let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing before God explained 2. n. 8 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifies 637 n. 10. Education The force of it in the choice of Religion 1018 1019. Elections Against popular elections in the Church 131 § 40. How it came to pass that in the Acts of the Apostles the people seem to exercise the power of electing the Seven Deacons 131 § 40. The people's approbation in the choice of the superiour Clergy was sometimes taken how and upon what reason 132 § 40. England The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick prayers 328 c. 2. § 8. The character of the Church of England 346. The great charity of the Protestant Church in England 460. Upon what ground we put Roman Priests to death 464. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. When Image-worship first came in hither 550. Ephesians Chap. 2. v. 3. by nature children of wrath explained 722 n. 50. Chap. 2.5 dead in sins explained 909. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the signification of it 900. Ephrem Syrus His authority against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. Epiphanius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. His authority against the worship of Images 306. The testimony against Images out of his Epistle 536. He mistook and misreported the Heresie of Montanus 955 n. 18. Equivocation The Romanists defend Equivocation and mental reservation 340 c. 3. § 1. Evangelist What that office was 69 § 14. That office was not inconsistent with the office of a Bishop ibid. Eucharist The real presence of Christ is not to be searched into too curiously as to the manner of it 182 § 1. The Pope forced Berengarius to recant in the Capernaitical sense 191 § 3. and 299. The meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 199 § 4. That Sacrament does imitate the words used at the Passeover as