you no further now but desire you to consider of these things with as much caution as they were written with charity Till I hear from you I shall pray to God to open your heart and your understanding that you may return from whence you are fallen and repent and do your first works Which that you may do is the hearty desire of Your very affectionate Friend and Servant JER TAYLOR THE SECOND LETTER Written to a Person newly Converted to the CHURCH of ENGLAND Madam I Bless God I am safely arrived where I desired to be after my unwilling departure from the place of your abode and danger And now because I can have no other expression of my tenderness I account that I have a treble Obligation to signifie it by my care of your biggest and eternal interest And because it hath pleased God to make me an Instrument of making you to understand in some fair measure the excellencies of a true and holy Religion and that I have pointed out such follies and errors in the Roman Church at which your understanding being forward and pregnant did of it self start as at imperfect ill-looking Propositions give me leave to do that now which is the purpose of my Charity that is teach you to turn this to the advantage of a holy life that you may not only be changed but converted For the Church of England whither you are now come is not in condition to boast her self in the reputation of changing the opinion of a single person though never so excellent She hath no temporal ends to serve which must stand upon fame and noises all that she can design is to serve God to advance the honour of the Lord and the good of Souls and to rejoyce in the Cross of Christ. First therefore I desire you to remember that as now you are taught to pray both publickly and privately in a Language understood so it is intended your affections should be forward in proportion to the advantages which your prayer hath in the understanding part For though you have been often told and have heard that Ignorance is the mother of devotion you will find that the proposition is unnatural and against common sense and experience because it is impossible to desire that of which we know nothing unless the desire it self be fantastical and illusive it is necessary that in the same proportion in which we understand any good thing in the same we shall also desire it and the more particular and minute your notices are the more passionate and material also your affections will be towards it and if they be good things for which we are taught to pray the more you know them the more reason you have to love them It is monstrous to think that devotion that is passionate desires of religious things and the earnest prosecutions of them should be produced by any thing of ignorance or less perfect notices in any sence Since therefore you are taught to pray so that your understanding is the Precentor or the Master of the Quire and you know what you say your desires are made humane religious express material for these are the advantages of Prayers and Liturgies well understood be pleased also to remember that now if you be not also passionate and devout for the things you mention you will want the Spirit of prayer and be more inexcusable than before In many of your Prayers before especially the publick you heard a voice but saw and perceived nothing of the sence and what you understood of it was like the man in the Gospel that was half blind he saw men walking like Trees and so you possibly might perceive the meaning of it in general You knew when they came to the Epistle when to the Gospel when the Introit when the Paâ— when any of the other more general periods were but you could have nothing of the Spirit of prayer that is nothing of the devotion and the holy affections to the particular excellencies which could or ought there to have been represented But now you are taught how you may be really devout it is made facil and easie and there can want nothing but your consent and observation 2. Whereas now you are taken off from all humane confidences from relying wholly and almost ultimately upon the Priests power and external act from reckoning prayers by numbers from forms and out-sides you are not to think that the Priests power is less that the Sacraments are not effective that your prayers may not be repeated frequently But you are to remember that all outward things and Ceremonies all Sacraments and Institutions work their effect in the vertue of Christ by some moral Instrument The Priests in the Church of England can absolve you as much as the Roman Priests could fairly pretend but then we teach that you must first be a penitent and a returning person and our absolution does but manifest the work of God and comfort and instruct your Conscience direct and manage it You shall be absolved here but not unless you live an holy life So that in this you will find no change but to the advantage of a strict life we will not flatter you and cozen your dear Soul by pretended ministeries but we so order our discourses and directions that all our ministrations may be really effective And when you receive the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper it does more good here than they do there because if they consecrate rightly yet they do not communicate you fully and if they offer the whole representative Sacrifice yet they do not give you the whole Sacrament only we enjoyn that you come with so much holiness that the grace of God in your heart may be the principal and the Sacrament in our hands may be the ministring and assisting part We do not promise great effects to easie trifling dispositions because we would not deceive but really procure to you great effects and therefore you are now to come to our offices with the same expectations as before of pardon of grace of sanctification but you must do something more of the work your self that we may not do less in effect than you have in your expectation We will not to advance the reputation of our power deceive you into a less blessing 3. Be careful that you do not flatter your self that in our Communion you may have more ease and liberty of life For though I know your pious Soul desires passionately to please God and to live religiously yet I ought to be careful to prevent a temptation lest it at any time should discompose your severity Therefore as to confession to a Priest which how it is usually practised among the Roman party your self can very well account and you have complain'd sadly that it is made an ordinary act easie and transient sometime matter of temptation oftentimes impertinent but suppose it free from such scandal to which some mens folly did
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
the accidents of a body were not communicable to a Spirit but how easily might they have been deceived if it had pleased God to invest other substances with new and stranger accidents For though a Spirit hath not flesh and bones they may represent to the eyes and hands the accidents of flesh and bones and if it could in the matter of faith stand with the goodness and wisdom of God to suffer it what certainty could there be of any Article of our religion relating to Christs humanity or any proposition proved by miracles To this instance the man that must answer all I mean Bellarmine ventures something saying it was a good argument of our blessed Saviour Handle and see that I am no Spirit That which is handled and seen is no Spirit But it is no good argument to say This is not seen not handled therefore it is no body and therefore the body of Christ may be naturally in the Sacrament though it is not seen nor handled To this I reply 1. That suppose it were true what he said yet it would also follow by his own words This is seen bread and is handled so therefore it is bread Hoc enim affirmativè colligitur This is the affirmative consequent made by our blessed Lord and here confessed to be certain It being the same collection It is I for by feeling and seeing you shall believe it to be so and it is bread for by feeling and seeing and tasting and smelling it you shall perceive it to be so To which let this be added That in Scripture it is as plainly affirmed to be bread as it is called Christs body Now then because it cannot be both in the proper and natural sence but one of them must be figurative and tropical since both of the appellatives are equally affirm'd is it not notorious that in this case we ought to give judgment on that side which we are prompted to by common sense If Christ had said only This is my body and no Apostle had told us also that it is bread we had reason to suspect our senses to be deceived if it were possible they should be but when it is equally affirmed to be bread as to be our Lords body and but one of them can be naturally true and in the letter shall the testimony of all our senses be absolutely of no use in casting the ballance The two affirmatives are equal one must be expounded tropically which will you chuse Is there in the world any thing more certain and expedite than that what you see and feel and taste naturall and proper should be judged to be that which you see and feel and taste naturally and properly and therefore that the other be expounded tropically since you must expound one of the words tropically I think it is not hard to determine whether you ought to do it against your sense or with it But it is also remarkable that our blessed Lord did not only by feeling and seeing prove it to be a body but by proving it was his body he proved it was himself that is by these accidents representing my person ye are not led into an error of the person any more than of the kind of substance See my hands and my feet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is even I my self this I noted lest a silly escape be made by pretending these accidents only proved Christ to be no Spirit but a body and so the accidents of bread declare a latent body meaning the body of Christ For as the accidents of a body declare the substance of a body so the particular accidents of this kind declare this kind of this person declare this person For so our blessed Saviour proved it to be himself in particular and if it were not so the deceit would pass from one thing to another and although it had not been a Spirit yet it might be John the Baptist risen from the dead or Moses or Elias and not Jesus their dear Lord. Besides if this had been all that Jesus had intended only to prove he was no spectrum but a body he had not done what was intended For put case it had been a Spirit and had assumed a body as Bellarmine in the very next Paragraph forgetting himself or else being entangled in the wildernesses of an inconsistent discourse affirms that in Scriptures the Israelites did sometimes see and then they were not deceived in touching or seeing a body for there was a body assumed and so it seemed to Abraham and Lot but then suppose Jesus Christ had done so and had been indeed a Spirit in an assumed body had not the Apostles been deceived by their feeling and seeing as well as the Israelites were in thinking those Angels to be men that came to them in humane shapes how had Christs arguments been pertinent and material how had he proved that he was no Spirit by shewing a body which might be the case of a Spirit but that it is not consistent with the wisdom and goodness of God to suffer any illusion in any matter of sense relating to an Article of Faith 5. Secondly It was the case of the Christian Church once not only to rely upon the evidence of sense for an introduction to the religion but also to need and use this argument in confirmation of an Article of the Creed For the Valentinians and the Marcionites thought Christs body to be fantastical and so denied the Article of the Incarnation and if arguments from sense were not enough to confute them viz. that the Apostles did see and feel a body flesh and blood and bones how could they convince these misbelievers for whatsoever answer can be brought against the reality of bread in the Eucharist all that may be answered in behalf of the Marcionites for if you urge to them all those places of Scripture which affirm Christ to have a body they answer it was in Scripture called a body because it seem'd to be so which is the answer Bellarmine gives to all those places of Scripture which call it bread after consecration And if you object that if it be not what it seems then the senses are deceived They will answer a Jesuit being by and prompting them the senses were not deceived because they only saw colour shape figure and the other accidents but the inward sense and understanding that is the man was deceived when he thought it to be the body of a man for under those accidents and appearances there was an Angel or a Divinity but no Man and now upon the grounds of Transubstantiation how can they be confuted I would fain know 6. But Tertullian disputing against them uses the argument of sense as the only instrument of concluding against them infallibly Non licet nobis in dubium sensus istos revocare c. It is not lawful to doubt of our senses lest the same doubt be made concerning Christ lest peradventure it should
be said he was deceived when he said I saw Satan like lightning fall from Heaven or when he heard the voice of his Father testifying concerning him or lest he should be deceived when he touched Peters wives mother by the hand or that he smelt another breath of ointment and not what was offered to his burial Alium postea vini saporem quod in sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit or tasted another taste of wine which he consecrated to the memory of his blood And if the Catholick Christians had believed the substantial natural presence of Christs body in the Sacrament and consequently disbelieved the testimony of four senses as the Church of Rome at this day does seeing smelling tasting feeling it had been impudence in them to have reproved Marcion by the testimony of two senses concerning the verity of Christs body And supposing that our eyes could be deceived and our taste and our smelling yet our touch cannot for supposing the organs equally disposed yet touch is the guardian of truth and his nearest natural instrument all sensation is by touch but the other senses are more capable of being deceived because though they finally operate by touch variously affected yet their objects are further removed from the Organ and therefore many intermedial things may intervene and possibly hinder the operation of the sense that is bring more diseases and disturbances to the action but in touch the object and the instrument joyn close together and therefore there can be no impediment if the instrument be sound and the object proper And yet no sense can be deceived in that which it always perceives alike The touch can never be deceived and therefore a testimony from it and three senses more cannot possibly be refused and therefore it were strange if all the Christians for above 1600 years together should be deceived as if the Eucharist were a perpetual illusion and a riddle to the senses for so many ages together and indeed the fault in this case could not be in the senses and therefore Tertullian and S. Austin dispute wittily and substantially that the senses could never be deceived but the understanding ought to assent to what they relate to it or represent For if any man thinks the staff is crooked that is set half way in the water it is the fault of his judgment not of his sense for the air and the water being several mediums the eye ought to see otherwise in air otherwise in water but the understanding must not conclude falsly from these true premises which the eye ministers For the thicker medium makes a fraction of the species by incrassation and a shadow and when a man in the yellow Jaundies thinks every thing yellow it is not the fault of his eye but of his understanding for the eye does his office right for it perceives just as is represented to it the species are brought yellow but the fault is in the understanding not perceiving that the species are stained near the eye not further off When a man in a fever thinks every thing bitter his taste is not deceived but judges rightly for as a man that chews bread and aloes together tastes not false if he tastes bitterness so it is in the sick mans case the juice of his meat is mingled with choler and the taste is acute and exact by perceiving it such as it is so mingled The purpose of which discourse is this that no notices are more evident and more certain than the notices of sense but if we conclude contrary to the true dictate of senses the fault is in the understanding collecting false conclusions from right premises It follows therefore that in the matter of the Eucharist we ought to judge that which our senses tell us For whatsoever they say is true for no deceit can come by them but the deceit is when we believe something besides or against what they tell us especially when the organ is perfect and the object proper and the medium regular and all things perfect and the same always and to all men For it is observable that in this case the senses are competent judges of the natural being of what they see and taste and smell and feel and according to that all the men in the world can swear that what they see is bread and wine but it is not their office to tell us what they become by the institution of our Saviour for that we are to learn by faith that what is bread and wine in nature is by Gods ordinance the Sacrament of the body and blood of the Saviour of the world but one cannot contradict another and therefore they must be reconciled both say true that which Faith teaches is certain and that which the senses of all men teach always that also is certain and evident for as the rule of the School says excellently Grace never destroys nature but perfects it and so it is in the consecration of bread and wine in which although we are more to regard their signification than their matter their holy imployment than their natural usage what they are by grace rather than what they are by nature that they are Sacramental rather than that they are nutritive that they are consecrated and exalted by religion rather than that they are mean and low in their natural beings what they are to the spirit and understanding rather than what they are to the sense yet this also is as true and as evident as the other and therefore though not so apt for our meditation yet as certain as that which is 7. Thirdly Though it be a hard thing to be put to prove that bread is bread and that wine is wine yet if the arguments and notices of sense may not pass for sufficient an impudent person may without possibility of being confuted out-face any man that an Oyster is a Rat and that a Candle is a pig of Lead and so might the Egyptian Soothsayers have been too hard for Moses for when they changed rods into Serpents they had some colour to tell Pharaoh they were Serpents as well as the rod of Moses But if they had failed to turn the water into blood they needed not to have been troubled if they could have born down Pharaoh that though it looked like water and tasted like water yet by their inchantment they had made it verily to be blood And upon this ground of having different substances unproper and disproportioned accidents what hinders them but they might have said so and if they had how should they have been confuted But this manner of proceeding would be sufficient to evacuate all reason and all science and all notices of things and we may as well conclude snow to be black and fire cold and two and two to make five and twenty 8. But it is said although the body of Christ be invested with unproper accidents yet sometimes Christ hath appeared in his own shape and blood
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
or lump neque id fide solùm sed reipsâ and in very deed makes us to be his body So Pope Leo. In mysticâ distributione Spiritualis alimoniae hoc impertitur sumitur ut accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi in carnem ipsius qui caro nostra factus est transeamus And in his 24 Sermon of the Passion Non alia igitur participatio corporis quà m ut in id quod sumimus transeamus There is no other participation of the body than that we should pass into that which we receive In the mystical distribution of the Spiritual nourishment this is given and taken that we receiving the vertue of the heavenly food may pass into his flesh who became our flesh And Rabanus makes the analogie fit to this question Sicut illud in nos convertitur dum id manducamus bibimus sic nos in corpus Christi convertimur dum obedienter piè vivimus As that Christs body is converted into us while we eat it and drink it so are we converted into the body of Christ while we live obediently and piously So Gregory Nyssen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The immortal body being in the receiver changes him wholly into his own nature and Theophylact useth the same word He that eateth me liveth by me whilst he is in a certain manner mingled with me is transelementated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or changed into me Now let men of all sides do reason and let one expound the other and it will easily be granted that as we are turned into Christ body so is that into us and so is the bread into that 12. Twelfthly Whatsoever the Fathers speak of this they affirm the same also of the other Sacrament and of the Sacramentals or rituals of the Church It is a known similitude used by S. Cyril of Alexandria As the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the holy Ghost is no longer common bread but it is the body of Christ so this holy unguent is no longer meer and common oyntment but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grace of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it uses to be mistaken the Chrisme for the Grace or gift of Christ and yet this is not spoken properly as is apparent but it is in this as in the Eucharist so says the comparison Thus S. Chrysostome says that the Table or Altar is as the manger in which Christ was laid that the Priest is a Seraphim and his hands are the tongs taking the coal from the Altar But that which I instance in is that 1. They say that they that hear the word of Christ eat the flesh of Christ of which I have already given account in Sect. 3. num 10. c. As hearing is eating as the word is his flesh so is the bread after consecration in a Spiritual sence 2. That which comes most fully home to this is their affirmative concerning Baptism to the same purposes and in many of the same expressions which they use in this other Sacrament S. Ambrose speaking of the baptismal waters affirms naturam mutari per benedictionem the nature of them is changed by blessing and S. Cyril of Alexandria saith By the operation of the holy Spirit the waters are reformed to a divine nature by which the baptized cleanse their body For in these the ground of all their great expressions is that which S. Ambrose expressed in these words Non agnosco usum naturae nullus est hic naturae ordo ubi est excellentia gratiae Where grace is the chief ingredient there the use and the order of nature is not at all considered But this whole mystery is most clear in S. Austin affirming That we are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ when in Baptism we are made members of Christ and are not estranged from the fellowship of that bread and chalice although we die before we eat that bread and drink that cup. Tingimur in passione Domini We are baptized into the passion of our Lord says Tertullian into the death of Christ saith S. Paul for by both Sacraments we shew the Lords death 13. Thirteenthly Upon the account of these premises we may be secur'd against all the objections or the greatest part of those testimonies from antiquity which are pretended for Transubstantiation for either they speak that which we acknowledg or that it is Christs body that it is not common bread that it is a divine thing that we eat Christs flesh that we drink his blood and the like all which we acknowledge and explicate as we do the words of institution or else they speak more than both sides allow to be literally true or speak as great things of other mysteries which must not cannot be expounded literally that is they speak more or less or diverse from them or the same with us and I think there is hardly one testimony in Bellarmine in Coccius and Perron that is pertinent to this question but may be made invalid by one or more of the former considerations But of those if there be any of which there may be a material doubt beyond the cure of these observations I shall give particular account in the sequel 14. But then for the testimonies which I shall alledge against the Roman doctrine in this article they will not be so easily avoided 1. Because many of them are not only affirmative in the Spiritual sence but exclusive of the natural and proper 2. Because it is easie to suppose they may speak hyperboles but never that which would undervalue the blessed Sacrament for an hyperbole is usual not a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the lessening a mystery that may be true this never that may be capable of fair interpretations this can admit of none that may breed reverence this contempt To which I add this that the heathens slandering the Christians to be worshippers of Ceres or Liber because of the holy bread and chalice as appears in S. Austins 20 book and 13 chapter against Faustus the Manichee had reason to advance the reputation of Sacramental signs to be above common bread and wine not only so to explicate the truth of the mystery but to stop the mouth of their calumny and therefore for higher expressions there might be cause but not such cause for any lower than the severest truth and yet let me observe this by the way S. Austin answered only thus We are far from doing so Quamvis panis calicis Sacramentum ritu nostro amplectamur S. Austin might have further removed the calumny if he had been of the Roman perswasion who adore not the bread no◠eat it at all in their Synaxes until it be no bread but changed into the body of our Lord. But he knew nothing of that Neither was there ever any scandal of Christians upon any mistake that could be a probable excuse for them to lessen their expressions in the matter Eucharistical
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
but that they contain in them the mystery of his body and blood Isidore Bishop of Sevil says Panis quem frangimus c. The bread which we break is the body of Christ who saith I am the living bread But the wine is his blood and that is it which is written I am the true vine But bread because it strengthens our body therefore it is called the body of Christ but wine because it makes blood in our flesh therefore it is reduced or referred to the blood of Christ. But these visible things sanctified by the holy Ghost pass into the Sacrament of the Divine body Suidas in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ calls the Church his body and by her as a man he ministers but as he is God he receives what is offered But the Church offers the symbols of his body and blood sanctifying the whole mass by the first fruits Symbola i. e. Signa says the Latin version The bread and wine are the signs of his body and his bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Suidas Hesychius speaking of this mystery affirms Quòd simul panis caro est It is both bread and flesh too Fulgentius saith Hic calix est novum Testamentum i. e. Hic calix quem vobis trado novum Testamentum significat This cup is the new Testament that is it signifies it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Procopius of Gaza He gave to his disciples the image of his own body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said the scholiast upon Dionysius the Areopagite These things are symbols and not the truth or verity and he said it upon occasion of the same doctrine which his Author whom he explicates taught in that Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Divine symbols being placed upon the Altar by which Christ is signified and participated But this only I shall remark that Transubstantiation is so far from having been the Primitive doctrine that it was among Catholicks fiercely disputed in the time of Charles the Bald about the year 880. Paschasius wrote for the Substantial conversion Rabanus maintain'd the contrary in his answer to Heribaldus and in his writing to Abbot Egilo There lived in the same time in the Court of Charles the Emperor a country-man of ours Jo. Scot called by some Jo. Erigena who wrote a book against the substantial change in the Sacrament He lived also sometimes in England with King Alfred and was surnamed the wise and was a Martyr saith Possevinus and was in the Roman Calender his day was the fourth of the Ides of November as is to be seen in the Martyrologie published at Antwerp 1586. But when the controversie grew publick and noted Charles the Bald commanded Bertram or Ratran to write upon the question being of the Monastery of Corbey he did so and defended our doctrine against Paschasius the book is extant and may be read by him that desires it but it is so intire and dogmatical against the substantial change which was the new doctrine of Paschasius that Turrian gives this account of it to cite Bertram what is it else but to say that Calvins heresie is not new and the Belgick expurgatory Index professeth to use it with the same equity which it useth to other Catholick writers in whom they tolerate many errors and extenuate or excuse them and sometimes by inventing some device they do deny it and put some fit sence to them when they are opposed in disputation and this they do lest the Hereticks should talk that they forbid and burn books that make against them You see the honesty of the men and the justness of their proceedings but the Spanish expurgatory Index forbids the book wholly with a penitus auferatur I shall only add this that in the Church of England Bertrams doctrine prevailed longer and till Lanfrancks time it was permitted to follow Bertram or Paschasius And when Osbern wrote the lives of Odo Arch-bishop of Canterbury Dunstan and Elphege by the command of Lanfranck he says that in Odo's time some Clergy-men affirmed in the Sacrament bread and wine to remain in substance and to be Christs body only in figure and tells how the Arch-bishop prayed and blood dropped out of the Host over the Chalice and so his Clerks which then assisted at Mass and were of another opinion were convinced This though he writes to please Lanfranck who first gave authority to this opinion in England and according to the opinion which then prevailed yet it is an irrefragable testimony that it was but a disputed Article in Odo's time no Catholick doctrine no Article of Faith nor of a good while after for however these Clerks were fabulously reported to be changed at Odo's miracle who could not convince them by the Law and the Prophets by the Gospels and Epistles yet his successor he that was the fourth after him I mean Aelfrick Abbot of S. Albans and afterwards Arch-bishop of Canterbury in his Saxon Homily written above 600 years since disputes the question and determines in the words of Bertram only for a Spiritual presence not natural or substantial The book was printed at London by John Day and with it a letter of Aelfrick to Wulfin Bishop of Schirburn to the same purpose His words are these That housel that is the blessed Sacrament is Christs body not bodily but spiritually not the body which he suffered in but the body of which he spake when he blessed bread and wine to Housel the night before his suffering and said by the blessed bread This is my body And in a writing to the Arch-bishop of York he said The Lord halloweth daily by the hand of the Priest bread to his body and wine to his blood in spiritual mystery as we read in books And yet notwithstanding that lively bread is not bodily so nor the self same body that Christ suffered in I end this with the words of the Gloss upon the Canon Law Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè unde dicitur suo modo scil non rei veritate sed significati mysterio ut sit sensus vocatur Christi corpus i. e. significatur The heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly therefore it is said meaning in the Canon taken out of S. Austin after the manner to wit not in the truth of the thing but in the mystery of that which is signified so that the meaning is it is called Christ body that is Christs body is signified which the Church of Rome well expresses in an ancient Hymn Sub duabus speciebus Signis tantùm non rebus Latent res eximiae Excellent things lie under the two species of bread and wine which are only signs not the things whereof they are signs But the Lateran Council struck all dead before which Transubstantiatio non
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
habit virtually and transcendently An act of this charity will not do this but the habit will For he that does a single act of charity may also doe a single act of malice and he that denies this knows not what he says nor ever had experience of himself or any man else For if he that does an act of charity that is he who by a good motion from Gods Spirit does any thing because God hath commanded to say that this man will do every thing which is so commanded is to say that a good man can never fall into a great sin which is evidently untrue But if he that does one act in obedience to God or in love to him for obedience is love will also do more then every man that does one act to please his senses may as well be supposed that he will do more and then no mans life should have in it any variety but be all of a piece intirely good or intirely evil I see no difference in the instances neither can there be so long as a man in both states hath a power to chuse But then it will follow that a single act of contrition or of charity cannot put a man into the state of the Divine favour it must be the grace or habit of charity and that is a magazine of habits by equivalency and is formally the state of grace And upon these accounts if old men will repent and do what they can do and are enabled in that state they have no cause to be afflicted with too great fears concerning the instances of their habits or the sins of their youth Concerning persons that are seis'd upon by a lingring sickness I have nothing peculiar to say save this only That their case is in something better than that of old men in some things worse It is better because they have in many periods of their sickness more hopes of returning to health and long life than old men have of returning to strength and youth and a protracted age and therefore their repentance if it be hearty hath in it also more degrees of being voluntary and relative to a good life But in this their case is worse An old man that is healthful is better seated in the station of penitents and because he can chuse contraries is the more acceptable if he chuses well But the sick man though living long in that disadvantage cannot be indifferent in so many instances as the other may and in this case it is remarkable what S. Austin said Si autem vis agere poenitentiam quando jam peccare non potes peccata te dimiserunt non tu illa To abstain from sin when a man cannot sin is to be forsaken by sin not to forsake it At the best it is bad enough But I doubt not but if they do what they can do there is mercy for them which they shall find in the day of recompences 67. Obj. 7. But how shall any man know whether he have perform'd his repentance as he ought For if it be necessary that he get the habits of vertue and extirpate the habits of vice that is if by habits God do and we are to make judgments of our repentance who can be certain that his sins are pardon'd and himself reconcil'd to God and that he shall be sav'd The reasons of his doubts and fears are these 1. Because it is a long time before a habit can be lost and the contrary obtain'd 2. Because while one habit lessens another may undiscernibly increase and it may be a degree of covetousness may expel a degree of prodigality 3. Because a habit may be lurking secretly and for want of opportunity of acting in that instance not betray it self or be discover'd or attempted to be cur'd For he that was not tempted in that kind where he sinn'd formerly may for ought he knows say that he hath not sinn'd only because he was not tempted but if that be all the habit may be resident and kill him secretly These things must be accounted for 70. I. But to him that inquires whether it be light or darkness in what regions his inheritance is design'd and whether his Repentance is sufficient I must give rather a reproof than an answer or at least such an answer as will tell there is no need of an answer For indeed it is not good inquiring into measures and little portions of grace * Love God with all thy heart and all thy strength do it heartily and do it always If the thing be brought to pass clearly and discernibly the pardon is certain and notorious But if it be in a middle state between ebbe and floud so is our pardon too and if in that undiscerned state it be in the thing certain that thou art on the winning and prevailing side if really thou dost belong unto God he will take care both of thy intermedial comfort and final interest * But when people are too inquisitive after comfort it is a sign their duty is imperfect In the same proportion also it is not well when we enquire after a sign for our state of grace and holiness If the habit be compleat and intire it is as discernible as light and we may as well enquire for a sign to know when we are hungry and thirsty when you can walk or play on the lute The thing it self is its best indication 71. II. But if men will quarrel at any truth because it supposes some men to be in such a case that they do not know certainly what will become of them in the event of things I know not how it can be help'd I am sure they that complain here that is the Roman Doctors are very fierce Preachers of the certainty of salvation or of our knowledge of it But be they who they will since all this uncertainty proceeds not from the doctrine but from the evil state of things into which habitual sinners have put themselves there will be the less care taken for an answer But certainly it seems strange that men who have liv'd basely and viciously all their days who are respited from an eternal Hell by the miracles of mercy concerning whom it is a wonderful thing that they had not really perished long before that these men returning at the last should complain of hard usage because it cannot be told to them as confidently as to new baptized Innocents that they are certain of their salvation as S. Peter and S. Paul * But however both they and better men than they must be content with those glorious measures of the Divine mercy which are described and upon any terms be glad to be pardon'd and to hope and fear to mourn and to be afflicted to be humbled and to tremble and then to work out their salvation with fear and trembling 72. III. But then to advance one step further there may be a certainty where is no evidence that is the thing may be certain in it self though
mercies give us pardon and thy holy Spirit give us perseverance and thy infinite favour bring us to glory through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen CHAP. X. Of Ecclesiastical Penance or The fruits of Repentance SECT I. 1. THE fruits of Repentance are the actions of spiritual life and signifie properly all that piety and obedience which we pay to God in the days of our return after we have begun to follow sober counsels For since all the duty of a Christian is a state of Repentance that is of contention against sin and the parts and proper periods of victory and Repentance which includes the faith of a Christian is but another word to express the same grace or mercies of the Evangelical Covenant it follows that whatsoever is the duty of a Christian and a means to possess that grace is in some sence or other a Repentance or the fruits of Gods mercy and our endeavours And in this sence S. John the Baptist means it saying Bring forth therefore fruits meet for Repentance that is since now the great expectation of the world is to be satisfied and the Lord 's Christ will open the gates of mercy and give Repentance to the world see that ye live accordingly in the faith and obedience of God through Jesus Christ. That did in the event of things prove to be the effect of that Sermon 2. But although all the parts of holy life are fruits of Repentance when it is taken for the state of favour published by the Gospel yet when Repentance is a particular duty or vertue the integral parts of holy life are also constituent parts of Repentance and then by the fruits of Repentance must be meant the less necessary but very useful effects and ministeries of Repentance which are significations and exercises of the main duty And these are sorrow for sins commonly called Contrition Confession of them and Satisfactions by which ought to be meant an opposing a contrary act of vertue to the precedent act of sin and a punishing of our selves out of sorrow and indignation for our folly And this is best done by all those acts of Religion by which God is properly appeased and sin is destroyed that is by those acts which signifie our love to God and our hatred to sin such as are Prayer and Alms and forgiving injuries and punishing our selves that is a forgiving every one but our selves 3. Many of these I say are not essential parts of Repentance without the actual exercise of which no man in any case can be said to be truly penitent for the constituent parts of Repentance are nothing but the essential parts of obedience to the Commandments of God that is direct abstinence from evil and doing what is in the Precept But they are fruits and significations exercises and blessed productions of Repentance useful to excellent purposes of it and such from which a man cannot be excused but by great accidents and rare contingencies To visit prisoners and to redeem captives and to instruct the ignorant are acts of charity but he that does not act these special instances is not always to be condemn'd for want of charity because by other acts of grace he may signifie and exercise his duty He only that refuses any instances because the grace is not operative he only is the Vncharitable but to the particulars he can be determin'd only by something from without but it is sufficient to the grace it self that it works where it can or where it is prudently chosen So it is in these fruits of Repentance He that out of hatred to sin abstains from it and out of love to God endeavours to keep his Commandments he is a true penitent though he never lie upon the ground or spend whole nights in prayer or make himself sick with fasting but he that in all circumstances refuses any or all of these and hath not hatred enough against his sin to punish it in himself when to do so may accidentally be necessary or enjoyned he hath cause to suspect himself not to be a true penitent 4. No one of these is necessary in the special instance except those which are distinctly and upon their own accounts under another precept as Prayer and forgiving injuries and self-affliction in general and Confession But those which are only apt ministeries to the grace which can be ministred unto equally by other instances those are left to the choice of every one or to be determin'd or bound upon us by accidents and by the Church But every one of the particulars hath in it something of special consideration SECT II. Of Contrition or godly Sorrow 5. IN all repentances it is necessary that we understand some sorrow ingredient or appendant or beginning To repent is to leave a sin which because it must have a cause to effect it can begin no where but where the sin is for some reason or other disliked that is because it does a mischief It is enough to leave it that we know it will ruine us if we abide in it but that is not enough to make us grieve for it when it is past and quitted For if we believe that as soon as ever we repent of it we shall be accepted to pardon and that infallibly and that being once forsaken it does not and shall not prejudice us he that considers this and remembers it was pleasant to him will scarce find cause enough to be sorrowful for it Neither is it enough to say he must grieve for it or else it will do him mischief For this is not true for how can sorrow prevent the mischief when the sorrow of it self is not an essential duty or if it were so in it self yet by accident it becomes not to be so for by being unreasonable and impossible it becomes also not necessary not a duty To be sorrowful is not always in our power any more than to be merry and both of them are the natural products of their own objects and of nothing else and then if sin does us pleasure at first and at last no mischief to the penitent to bid them be sorrowful lest it should do mischief is as improper a remedy as if we were commanded to be hungry to prevent being beaten He that felt nothing but the pleasure of sin and is now told he shall feel none of its evils and that it can no more hurt him when it is forsaken than a Bee when the sting is out if he be commanded to grieve may justly return in answer that as yet he perceives no cause 6. If it be told him it is cause enough to grieve that he hath offended God who can punish him with sad unsufferable and eternal torments This is very true But if God be not angry with him and he be told that God will not punish him for the sin he repents of then to grieve for having offended God is so Metaphysical and abstracted a speculation that there must be something else in
to signifie in an apt and a disposed nature what kind of apprehensions and trouble there is within For weeping upon the presence of secular troubles is more ready and easie because it is an effect symbolical and of the same nature with its proper cause But when there is a spiritual cause although its proper effect may be greater and more effective of better purposes yet unless by the intermixture of some material and natural cause it be more apportion'd to a material and natural product it is not to be charged with it or expected from it Sin is a spiritual evil and tears is the sign of a natural or physical sorrow Smart and sickness and labour are natural or physical evils and hatred and nolition is a spiritual or intellectual effect Now as every labour and every smart is not to be hated or rejected but sometimes chosen by the understanding when it is mingled with a good that pleases the understanding and is eligible upon the accounts of reason So neither can every sin which is the intellectual evil be productive of tears or sensitive sorrow unless it be mingled with something which the sense and affections that is which the lower man hates and which will properly afflict him such as are fear or pain or danger or disgrace or loss The sensitive sorrow therefore which is usually seen in new penitents is upon the account of those horrible apprehensions which are declared in holy Scriptures to be the consequent of sins but if we shall so preach Repentance as to warrant a freedom and a perfect escape instantly from all significations of the wrath of God and all dangers for the future upon the past and present account I know not upon what reckoning he that truly leaves his sin can be commanded to be sorrowful and if he were commanded how he can possibly obey 18. But when repentance hath had its growth and progression and is increased into a habit of piety sorrow and sensitive trouble may come in upon another account for great and permanent changes of the mind make great impressions upon the lower man When we love an object intensely our very body receives comfort in the presence of it and there are friendly Spirits which have a natural kindness and cognation to each other and refresh one another passing from eye to eye from friend to friend and the Prophet David felt it in the matter of Religion My flesh and my heart rejoyce in the living Lord. For if a grief of mind is a consumption of the flesh and a chearful spirit is a conservatory of health it is certain that every great impression that is made upon the mind and dwells there hath its effect upon the body and the lower affections And therefore all those excellent penitents who consider the baseness of sin * their own danger though now past in some degrees * the offence of God * the secret counsels of his Mercy * his various manners of dispensing them * the fearful judgments which God unexpectedly sends upon some men * the dangers of our own confidence * the weakness of our Repentance * the remains of our sin * the aptnesses and combustible nature of our Concupiscence * the presence of temptation and the perils of relapsing * the evil state of things which our former sins leave us in * our difficulty in obeying and our longings to return to Egypt * and the fearful anger of God which will with greater fierceness descend if we chance to fall back Those penitents I say who consider these things frequently and prudently will find their whole man so wrought upon that every faculty shall have an enmity against sin and therefore even the affections of the lower man must in their way contribute to its mortification and that is by a real and effective sorrow 19. But in this whole affair the whole matter of question will be in the manner of operation or signification of the dislike For the duty is done if the sin be accounted an enemy that is whether the dislike be only in the intellectual and rational appetite or also in the sensitive For although men use so to speak and distinguish superior from inferior appetites yet it will be hard in nature to find any real distinct faculties in which those passions are subjected and from which they have emanation The intellectual desire and the sensual desire are both founded in the same faculty they are not distinguished by their subjects but by their objects only they are but several motions of the will to or from several objects When a man desires that which is most reasonable and perfective or consonant to the understanding that we call an intellectual or rational appetite but if he desires a thing that will do him hurt in his soul or to his best interest and yet he desires it because it pleases him this is fit to be called a sensitive appetite because the object is sensitive and it is chosen for a sensual reason But it is rather appetitio than appetitus that is an act rather than a principle of action The case is plainer if we take two objects of several interests both of which are proportion'd to the understanding S. Anthony in the desart and S. Bernard in the Pulpit were tempted by the spirit of pride they resisted and overcame it because pride was unreasonable and foolish as to themselves and displeasing to God If they had listned to the whispers of that spirit it had been upon the accounts of pleasure because pride is that deliciousness of spirit which entertains a vain man making him to delight in his own images and reflexions and therefore is a work of the flesh but yet plainly founded in the understanding And therefore here it is plain that when the flesh and the spirit fight it is not a fight between two faculties of the soul but a contest in the soul concerning the election of two objects It is no otherwise in this than in every deliberation when arguments from several interests contest each other Every passion of the man is nothing else but a proper manner of being affected with an object and consequently a tendency to or an aversion from it that is a willing or a nilling of it which willing and nilling when they produce several permanent impressions upon the mind and body receive the names of divers passions The object it self first striking the fancy or lower apprehensions by its proper energy makes the first passion or tendency to the will that is the inclination or first concupiscence but when the will upon that impression is set on work and chuses the sensual object that makes the abiding passion the quality As if the object be displeasing and yet not present it effects fear or hatred if good and not present it is called desire but all these diversifications are meerly natural effects as to be warm is before the fire and cannot be in our choice directly and immediately That
Apostle here speaks of sin imputed therefore not of sin inherent and if imputed only to such purposes as he here speaks of viz. to temporal death then it is neither a sin properly nor yet imputable to Eternal death so far as is or can be implied by the Apostles words And in this I am not a little confirmed by the discourse of S. Irenaeus to this purpose lib. 3. cap. 35. Propter hoc initio transgressionis Adae c. Therefore in the beginning of Adams transgression as the Scripture tells God did not curse Adam but the Earth in his labours as one of the Ancients saith God removed the curse upon the Earth that it might not abide on man But the condemnation of his sin he received weariness and labour and to eat in the sweat of his brows and to return to dust again and likewise the woman had for her punishment tediousness labours groans sorrows of child-birth and to serve her husband that they might not wholly perish in the curse not yet despise God while they remained without punishment But all the curse run upon the Serpent who seduced them and this our Lord in the Gospel saith to them on his left hand Go ye cursed into everlasting fire which my Father prepared for the Devil and his Angels signifying that not to man in the prime intention was eternal fire prepared but to him who was the seducer but this they also shall justly feel who like them without repentance and departing from them persevere in the works of malice 5. The Apostle says By the disobedience of one many were made sinners By which it appears that we in this have no sin of our own neither is it at all our own formally and inherently for though efficiently it was his and effectively ours as to certain purposes of imputation yet it could not be a sin to us formally because it was Vnius inobedientia the disobedience of one man therefore in no sence could it be properly ours For then it were not Vnius but inobedientia singulorum the disobedience of all men 6. Whensoever another mans sin is imputed to his relative therefore because it is anothers and imputed it can go no further but to effect certain evils to afflict the relative and to punish the cause not formally to denominate the descendant or relative to be a sinner for it is as much a contradiction to say that I am formally by him a sinner as that I did really do his action Now to impute in Scripture signifies to reckon as if he had done it Not to impute is to treat him so as if he had not done it So far then as the imputation is so far we are reckoned as sinners but Adams sin being by the Apostle signified to be imputed but to the condemnation or sentence to a temporal death so far we are sinners in him that is so as that for his sake death was brought upon us And indeed the word imputare to impute does never signifie more nor always so much Imputare verò frequenter ad significationem exprobrantis accedit sed ciâ—râ— reprehensionem says Laurentius Valla It is like an exprobration but short of a reprooâ— so Quintilian Imputas nobis propitios ventos secundum mare ac civitatis opulenâ—ae liberalitatem Thou dost impute that is upbraid to us our prosperous voyages and a calm Sea and the liberality of a rich City Imputare signifies oftentimes the same that computare to reckon or account Nam haec in quartâ non imputantur say the Lawyers they are not imputed that is they are not computed or reckoned Thus Adams sin is imputed to us that is it is put into our reckoning and when we are sick and die we pay our Symbols the portion of evil that is laid upon us and what Marcus said I may say in this case with a little variety Legata in haereditate sive legatum datum sit haeredi sive percipere sive deducere vel retinere passus est ei imputantur The legacy whether it be given or left to the heir whether he may take it or keep it is still imputed to him that is it is within his reckoning But no reason no Scripture no Religion does inforce and no Divine Attribute does permit that we should say that God did so impute Adams sin to his posterity that he did really esteem them to be guilty of Adams sin equally culpable equally hateful For if in this sence it be true that in him we sinned then we sinned as he did that is with the same malice in the same action and then we are as much guilty as he but if we have sinned less then we did not sin in him for to sin in him could not by him be lessened to us for what we did in him we did by him and therefore as much as he did but if God imputed this sin less to us than to him then this imputation supposes it only to be a collateral and indirect account to such purposes as he pleased of which purposes we judge by the analogy of faith by the words of Scripture by the proportion and notices of the Divine Attributes 7. There is nothing in the design or purpose of the Apostle that can or ought to infer any other thing for his purpose is to signifie that by mans sin death entred into the world which the son of Sirach Ecclus. 25.33 expresses thus A muliere factum est initium peccati inde est quod morimur from the woman is the beginning of sin and from her it is that we all die and again Ecclus. 1.24 By the envy of the Devil death came into the world this evil being Universal Christ came to the world and became our head to other purposes even to redeem us from death which he hath begun and will finish and to become to us our Parent in a new birth the Author of a spiritual life and this benefit is of far more efficacy by Christ than the evil could be by Adam and as by Adam we are made sinners so by Christ we are made righteous not just so but so and more and therefore as our being made sinners signifies that by him we die so being by Christ made righteous must at least signifie that by him we live and this is so evident to them who read S. Pauls words Rom. 5. from verse 12. to verse 19. inclusively that I wonder any man should make a farther question concerning them especially since Erasmus and Grotius who are to be reckoned amongst the greatest and the best expositors of Scripture that any age since the Apostles and their immediate successors hath brought forth have so understood and rendred it But Madam that your Honour may read the words and their sence together and see that without violence they signifie what I have said and no more I have here subjoyned a Paraphrase of them in which if I use any violence I can very easily be reproved
and cellars and retirements think that they being upon the defensive those Princes and those Laws that drive them to it are their enemies and therefore they cannot be secure unless the power of the one and the obligation of the other be lessened and rescinded and then the being restrained and made miserable endears the discontented persons mutually and makes more hearty and dangerous Confederations King James of blessed memory in his Letters to the States of the Vnited Provinces dated 6. March 1613. thus wrote Magis autem è re fore si sopiantur authoritate publicâ ità ut prohibeatis Ministros vestros nè eas disputationes in suggestum aut ad plebem ferant ac districtè imperetis ut pacem colant se invicem tolerando in ista opinionum ac sententiarum discrepantia Eóque justiùs videmur vobis hoc ipsum suadere debere quòd neutram comperimus adeò deviam ut non possint cum fidei Christianae veritate cum animarum salute consistere c. The like counsel in the divisions of Germany at the first Reformation was thought reasonable by the Emperour Ferdinand and his excellent Son Maximilian For they had observed that violence did exasperate was unblessed unsuccessfull and unreasonable and therefore they made Decrees of Toleration and appointed tempers and expedients to be drawn up by discreet persons and George Cassander was design'd to this great work and did something towards it And Emanuel Philibert Duke of Savoy repenting of his war undertaken for Religion against the Pedemontans promised them Toleration and was as good as his word As much is done by the Nobility of Polonia So that the best Princes and the best Bishops gave Toleration and Impunities but it is known that the first Persecutions of disagreeing persons were by the Arians by the Circumcellians and Donatists and from them they of the Church took examples who in small numbers did sometime perswade it sometime practise it And among the Greeks it became a publick and authorized practice till the Question of Images grew hot and high for then the Worshippers of Images having taken their example from the Empress Irene who put her son's eyes out for making an Edict against Images began to be as cruel as they were deceived especially being encouraged by the Popes of Rome who then blew the coals to some purpose And that I may upon this occasion give account of this affair in the Church of Rome it is remarkable that till the time of Justinian the Emperour A.D. 525. the Catholicks and Novatians had Churches indifferently permitted even in Rome itself but the Bishops of Rome whose interest was much concerned in it spoke much against it and laboured the eradication of the Novatians and at last when they got power into their hands they served them accordingly but it is observed by Socrates that when the first Persecution was made against them at Rome by Pope Innocent I. at the same instant the Goths invaded Italy and became Lords of all it being just in God to bring a Persecution upon them for true belief who with an incompetent Authority and insufficient grounds do persecute an errour less material in persons agreeing with them in the profession of the same common Faith And I have heard it observed as a blessing upon S. Austin who was so mercifull to erring persons as the greatest part of his life in all senses even when he had twice changed his minde yet to tolerate them and never to endure they should be given over to the Secular power to be killed that the very night the Vandals set down before his City of Hippo to besiege it he died and went to God being as a reward of his mercifull Doctrine taken from the miseries to come And yet that very thing was also a particular issue of the Divine Providence upon that City who not long before had altered their profession into truth by force and now were falling into their power who afterward by a greater force turned them to be Arians But in the Church of Rome the Popes were the first Preachers of force and violence in matters of Opinion and that so zealously that Pope Vigilius suffered himself to be imprisoned and handled roughly by the Emperour Justinian rather then he would consent to the restitution and peace of certain disagreeing persons But as yet it came not so far as Death The first that preached that Doctrine was Dominick the Founder of the Begging Orders of Friers the Friers Preachers in memory of which the Inquisition is intrusted onely to the Friers of his Order And if there be any force in Dreams or truth in Legends as there is not much in either this very thing might be signified by his Mother's dream who the night before Dominick was born dreamed she was brought to bed of a huge Dog with a fire-brand in his mouth Sure enough however his Disciples expound the dream it was a better sign that he should prove a rabid furious Incendiary then any thing else whatever he might be in the other parts of his life in his Doctrine he was not much better as appears in his deportment toward the Albigenses against whom he so preached adeo quidem ut centum haereticorum millia ab octo millibus Catholicorum fusa interfecta fuisse perhibeantur saith one of him and of those who were taken 180 were burnt to death because they would not abjure their Doctrine This was the first example of putting erring persons to death that I find in the Roman Church For about 170 years before Berengarius fell into opinion concerning the blessed Sacrament which they called Heresie and recanted and relapsed and recanted again and fell again two or three times saith Gerson writing against Romant of the Rose and yet he died sicca morte his own natural death and with hope of Heaven and yet Hildebrand was once his Judge which shews that at that time Rome was not come to so great heights of bloudshed In England although the Pope had as great power here as any-where yet there were no executions for matter of Opinion known till the time of Henry the fourth who because he usurped the Crown was willing by all means to endear the Clergy by destroying their enemies that so he might be sure of them to all his purposes And indeed it may become them well enough who are wiser in their generations then the children of light it may possibly serve the policies of evil persons but never the pure and chast dâ—signs of Christianity which admits no bloud but Christ's and the imitating bloud of Martyrs but knows nothing how to serve her ends by persecuting any of her erring Children By this time I hope it will not be thought reasonable to say he that teaches mercy to erring persons teaches indifferency in Religion unless so many Fathers and so many Churches and the best of Emperours and all the world till they were abused by Tyranny
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
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
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
for matters of question which have not in them an enmity to the publick tranquillity as the Republick hath nothing to doe upon the ground of all the former discourses so if the Church meddles with them where they do not derive into ill life either in the person or in the consequent or else are destructions of the foundation of Religion which is all one for that those fundamental Articles are of greatest necessity in order to a vertuous and godly life which is wholly built upon them and therefore are principally necessary if she meddles farther otherwise then by preaching and conferring and exhortation she becomes tyrannical in her government makes herself an immediate judge of Consciences and perswasions lords it over their Faith destroys unity and charity and as he that dogmatizes the Opinion becomes criminal if he troubles the Church with an immodest peevish and pertinacious proposall of his Article not simply necessary so the Church does not do her duty if she so condemns it pro tribunali as to enjoyn him and all her subjects to believe the contrary And as there may be pertinacy in Doctrine so there may be pertinacy in judging and both are faults The peace of the Church and the unity of her Doctrine is best conserved when it is judged by the proportion it hath to that rule of unity which the Apostles gave that is the Creed for Articles of mere belief and the precepts of Jesus Christ and the practicall rules of piety which are most plain and easie and without controversie set down in the Gospels and writings of the Apostles But to multiply Articles and adopt them into the family of the Faith and to require assent to such Articles which as Saint Paul's phrase is are of doubtfull disputation equal to that assent we give to matters of Faith is to build a tower upon the top of a Bulrush and the farther the effect of such proceedings does extend the worse they are the very making such a Law is unreasonable the inflicting spiritual censures upon them that cannot doe so much violence to their understanding as to obey it is unjust and ineffectuall but to punish the person with death or with corporal infliction indeed it is effectuall but it is therefore tyrannicall We have seen what the Church may doe towards restraining false or differing Opinions next I shall consider by way of Corollary what the Prince may doe as for his interest and onely in securing his people and serving the ends of true Religion SECT XVI Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give Toleration to severall Religions 1. FOR upon these very grounds we may easily give account of that great Question Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give Toleration to several Religions For first It is a great fault that men will call the several Sects of Christians by the names of several Religions The Religion of Jesus Christ is the form of sound Doctrine and wholsome words which is set down in Scripture indefinitely actually conveyed to us by plain places and separated as for the question of necessary or not necessary by the Symbol of the Apostles Those impertinencies which the wantonnesse and vanity of men hath commenced which their interests have promoted which serve not Truth so much as their own ends are far from being distinct Religions for matters of Opinion are no parts of the Worship of God nor in order to it but as they promote obedience to his Commandments and when they contribute towards it are in that proportion as they contribute parts and actions and minute particulars of that Religion to whose end they do or pretend to serve And such are all the Sects and all the pretences of Christians but pieces and minutes of Christianity if they do serve the great end as every man for his own Sect and interest believes for his share it does 2. Toleration hath a double sense or purpose For sometimes by it men understand a publick licence and exercise of a Sect sometimes it is onely an indemnity of the persons privately to convene and to opine as they see cause and as they mean to answer to God Both these are very much to the same purpose unlesse some persons whom we are bound to satisfie be scandalized and then the Prince is bound to doe as he is bound to satisfie To God it is all one For abstracting from the offence of persons which is to be considered just as our obligation is to content the persons it is all one whether we indulge to them to meet publickly or privately to doe actions of Religion concerning which we are not perswaded that they are truly holy To God it is just one to be in the dark and in the light the thing is the same onely the Circumstance of publick and private is different which cannot be concerned in any thing nor can it concern any thing but the matter of Scandal and relation to the minds and fantasies of certain persons 3. So that to tolerate is not to persecute And the Question whether the Prince may tolerate divers perswasions is no more then whether he may lawfully persecute any man for not being of his Opinion Now in this case he is just so to tolerate diversity of perswasions as he is to tolerate publick actions for no Opinion is judicable nor no person punishable but for a sin and if his Opinion by reason of its managing or its effect be a sin in itself or becomes a sin to the person then as he is to doe towards other sins so to that Opinion or man so opining But to believe so or not so when there is no more but mere believing is not in his power to enjoyn therefore not to punish And it is not onely lawfull to tolerate disagreeing Perswasions but the Authority of God onely is competent to take notice of it and infallible to determine it and fit to judge and therefore no humane Authority is sufficient to doe all those things which can justifie the inflicting temporal punishments upon such as doe not conform in their perswasions to a Rule or Authority which is not onely fallible but supposed by the disagreeing person to be actually deceived 4. But I consider that in the Toleration of a different Opinion Religion is not properly and immediately concerned so as in any degree to be endangered For it may be safe in diversity of perswasions and it is also a part of Christian Religion that the liberty of mens Consciences should be preserved in all things where God hath not set a limit and made a restraint that the Soul of man should be free and acknowledge no Master but Jesus Christ that matters spiritual should not be restrained by punishments corporal that the same meekness and charity should be preserved in the promotion of Christianity that gave it foundation and increment and firmness in its first publication that Conclusions should not be more dogmatical then the virtual resolution