is granted But did the Church ever interpret Scripture to signifie Transubstantiation and say that by the force of the words of Scripture it was to be believed If she did not then to say she is a betrer Interpreter is to no purpose for though the Church be a better Interpreter than they yet they did not contradict each other and their sence might be the sence of the Church But if the Church before their time had expounded it against their sence and they not submit to it how do you reckon them Catholicks and not me For it is certain if the Church expounding Scripture did declare it to signifie Transubstantiation they did not submit themselves and their writings to the Church But if the Church had not in their times done it and hath done it since that is another consideration and we are left to remember that till Cajetans time that is till Luthers time the Church had not declared that Scripture did prove Transubstantiation and since that time we know who hath but not the Church Catholick 5. And indeed it had been strange if the Cardinals of Cambray de Sanctovio and of Rochester that Scotus and Biel should never have heard that the Church had declared that the words of Scripture did infer Transubstantiation And it is observable that all these lived long after the Article it self was said to be decreed in the Lateran where if the Article it self was declared yet it was not declared as from Scripture or if it was they did not believe it But it is an usual device amongst their writers to stifle their reason or to secure themselves with a submitting to the authority of their Church even against their argument and if any one speaks a bold truth he cannot escape the Inquisition unless he complement the Church and with a civility tell her that she knows better which in plain English is no otherwise than the fellow that did penance for saying the Priest lay with his wife he was forced to say Tongue thou liest though he was sure his eyes did not lie And this is that which Scotus said Transubstantiation without the determination of the Church is not evidently inferred from Scripture This I say is a complement and was only to secure the Frier from the Inquisitors or else was a direct stifling of his reason for it contains in it a great error or a worse danger For if the Article be not contained so in Scripture as that we are bound to believe it by his being there then the Church must make a new Article or it must remain as it was that is obscure and we uncompell'd and still at liberty For she cannot declare unless it be so she declares what is or what is not If what is not she declares a lie if what is then it is in Scripture before and then we are compelled that is we ought to have believed it If it be said it was there but in it self obscurely I answer then so it is still for if it was obscurely there and not only quoad nos or by defect on our part she cannot say it is plain there neither can she alter it for if she sees it plain then it was plain if it be obscure then she sees it obscurely for she sees it as it is or else she sees it not at all and therefore must declare it to be so that is probably obscurely peradventure but not evidently compellingly necessarily 6. So that if according to the Casuists especially of the Jesuits order it be lawful to follow the opinion of any one probable Doctor here we have five good men and true besides Ocham Bassolis and Melchior Canus to acquit us from our search after this question in Scripture But because this although it satisfies me will not satisfie them that follow the decree of Trent we will try whether this doctrine be to be found in Scripture Pede pes SECT III. Of the sixth Chapter of Saint Johns Gospel 1. IN this Chapter it is earnestly pretended that our blessed Saviour taught the mystery of Transubstantiation but with some different opinions for in this question they are divided all the way some reckon the whole Sermon as the proof of it from verse 33 to 58 though how to make them friends with Bellarmine I understand not who says Constat it is known that the Eucharist is not handled in the whole Chapter for Christ there discourses of Natural bread the miracle of the loaves of Faith and of the Incarnation is a great part of the Chapter Solùm igitur quaestio est de illis verbis Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi vitâ de sequentibus fere ad finem capitis The question only is concerning those words verse 51. The bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world and so forward almost until the end of the Chapter The reason which is pretended for it is because Christ speaks in the future and therefore probably relates to the institution which was to be next year but this is a trifle for the same thing in effect is before spoken in the future tense and by way of promise Labour not for the meat that perisheth but for that meat that endureth to everlasting life which the Son of man shall give unto you The same also is affirmed by Christ under the expression of water S. John 4.14 He that drinketh the water which I shall give him shall never thirst but the water which I shall give him shall be a fountain of water springing up to life eternal The places are exactly parallel and yet as this is not meant of Baptism so neither is the other of the Eucharist but both of them of spiritual sumption of Christ. And both of them being promises to them that shall come to Christ and be united to him it were strange if they were not expressed in the future for although they always did signifie in present and in sensu currenti yet because they are of never failing truth to express them in the future is most proper that the expectation of them may appertain to all Ad natos natorum qui nascentur ab illis But then because Christ said The bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the World to suppose this must be meant of a corporal manducation of his flesh in the holy Sacrament is as frivolous as if it were said that nothing that is spoken in the future can be figurative and if so then let it be considered what is meant by these To him that overcomes I will give to eat of the tree of life and To him that overcomes I will give to eat of the hidden Manna These promises are future but certainly figurative and therefore why it may not be so here and be understood of eating Christ spiritually or by faith I am certain there is no cause
thing could be and not be at the same time then there would be something whose being were not to be Nay Dominicus à Soto affirms expresly that not only things only cannot be done by God which intrinsecally formally and expresly infer two contradictories but those also which the understanding at the first proposal does by his natural light dissent from and can by no means admit because that which is so repugnant to the understanding naturally does suâ naturâ repugnare is impossible in the nature of things and therefore when it is said in S. Luke nothing is impossible with God it is meant Nothing is impossible but that which naturally repugnes to the understanding Now to apply this to the present question Our adversaries do not deny but that in the doctrine of Transubstantiation there are a great many impossibilities which are such naturally and ordinarily but by Divine power they can be done but that they are done they have no warrant but the plain literal sence of the words of Hoc est corpus meum Now this is so far from proving that God does work perpetual miracles to verifie their sence of it that the working of miracles ought to prove that to be the sence of it Now the probation of a proposition by miracles is an open thing clear as thunder and being a matter of sense and consequently more known than the thing which they intend to prove ought not to be proved by that which is the thing in question And therefore to say that God will work a miracle rather than his words should be false is certain but impertinent For concerning the words themselves there is no question and therefore now no more need of miracles to confirm them concerning the meaning of them is the question They say this is the meaning Quest. How do you prove it since there are so many impossibilities in it naturally and ordinarily Answ. Because God said it therefore it is true Resp. Yea that God said the words we doubt not but that his words are to be understood in your sence that I doubt because if I believe your sence I must admit many things ordinarily impossible Answ. Yea but nothing is impossible to God Resp. True nothing that can be done exceeds his power but supposing this absolutely possible yet how does it appear that God will do a miracle to verifie your sence which otherwise cannot be true when without a miracle the words may be true in many other sences Jam dic posthume for it is hard that men by a continual effort and violence should maintain a proposition against reason and his unquestionable maximes thinking it sufficient to oppose against it Gods omnipotency as if the crying out a miracle were a sufficient guard against all absurdity in the world as if the wisdom of God did arm his power against his truth and that it were a fineness of Spirit to be able to believe the two parts of a contradiction and all upon confidence of a miracle which they cannot prove And indeed it were something strange that thousands and thousands of times every day for above 1500 years together the same thing should be done and yet this should be called a miracle that is a daily extraordinary for by this time it would pass into nature and a rule and so become a supernatural natural event an extraregular rule an extraordinary ordinary a perpetual wonder that is a wonder and no wonder and therefore I may infer the proper corollaries of this argument in the words of Scotus whose opinion it was pity it could be overborn by tyranny 1. That the truth of the Eucharist may be saved without Transubstantiation And this I have already proved 2. The substance of bread under the accidents is more a nourishment than the accidents themselves and therefore more represents Christs body in the formality of Spiritual nourishment And indeed that I may add some weight to these words of Scotus which are very true and very reasonable 1. It cannot be told why bread should be chosen for the symbol of the body but because of his nourishing faculty and that the accidents should nourish without substance is like feeding a man with musick and quenching his thirst with a Diagram 2. It is fantastical and mathematical bread not natural which by the doctrine of Transubstantiation is represented on the table and therefore unfit to nourish or to typifie that which can 3. Painted bread might as well be symbolical as the real if the real bread become no bread for then that which remains is nothing but the accidents as colour and dimensions c. But Scotus proceeds 3. That understanding of the words of institution that the substance of bread is not there seems harder to be maintained and to it more inconveniences are consequent than by putting the substance of bread to be there 4. Lastly It is a wonder why in one Article which is not a principal Article of faith such a sence should be affirmed for which faith is exposed to the contempt of all that follow reason and all this is because iâ— Transubstantiation there are many natural and ordinary impossibilities In hâ—c conversione sunt plura difficiliora quà m in creatione said Aquinas There are more difficulties in this conversion of the Sacrament than in the whole Creation 9. But then because we are speaking concerning what may be done by God it ought to be considered that it is rash and impudent to say that the body of Christ cannot by the power of God who can do all things be really in the Sacrament without the natural conversion of bread into him God can make that the body of Christ should be de novo in the Sacrament of the Altar without any change of it self and without the change of any thing into it self yet some change being made about the bread or something else They are the words of Durand Cannot God in any sence make this proposition true This bread is the body of Christ or this is bread and Christs body too If they say he cannot then it is a clear case who it is that denies Gods omnipotency If God can then how will they be able from the words of Scripture to prove Transubstantiation This also would be considered 10. But now concerning impossibilities if it absolutely can be evinc'd that this doctrine of Transubstantiation does affirm contradictions then it is not only an intolerable prejudice against the doctrine as is the ordinary and natural impossibility but it will be absolutely impossible to be true and it derogates from God to affirm such a proposition in religion and much more to adopt it into the body of faith And therefore when S. Paul had quoted that place of Scripture He hath put all things under him he adds It is evident that he is excepted who did put all things under him for if this had not been so understood then he should have been under himself and he
of Original sin as it is commonly explicated at this day For all that this Author for it was indeed some later Catholick Author but not Justin did know of Original sin was that which he relates in the answer to the 102 Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We also are circumcised with the circumcision of Christ by baptism putting off Adam by whom we being made sinners did die and putting on Christ by whom being Justified we are risen from the dead In whom saith the Apostle we were circumcised with the circumcision which is made without hands while you have put off your body That is Adam's sin made us to become sinners that is was imputed to us so that in him we die but by Christ being justified we are made alive that is in him we are admitted to another life a life after our resurrection and this is by baptism for there we die to Adam and live to Christ we are initiated in a new birth to a new and more perfect state of things But all this leaves Infants in a state of so much innocence that they are not formally guilty of a sin but imperfect and insufficient to righteousness and every one hath his liberty left him to do as he please so far is affirmed by the author of these answers But the sentence of Justin Martyr in this article may best be conjectured by his discourse at large undertaking to prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A freedom of Election to fly evil things and to choose that which is good set down in his second apology for the Christians Theophilus Antiochenus affirms that which destroys the new 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about Adam's perfection and rare knowledge in the state of innocence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adam in that age was yet as an infant and therefore did not understand that secret viz. that the fruit which he eat had in it nothing but knowledge and a little after reckoning the evil consequents of Adam's sin he names these onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grief sorrow and death at last 20. Clemens of Alexandria having affirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that by nature we are born apt to vertue not that we have vertue from our birth but that we are apt to require it from thence takes opportunity to discuss this question whether Adam was formed perfect or imperfect If imperfect how comes it to pass that the 〈◊〉 of God especially Man should be imperfect If perfect how came he to break the commandments He answers that Adam was not made perfect in his constitution but prepared indeed for vertue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For God would have us by our selves that is by our own choice to be 〈◊〉 For it is the nature of the Soul to be driven and stirred up by it self Many more things to the same purpose he affirms in perfect contradiction to them who believe Adam's sin so to have debauched our faculties that we have lost all our powers of election our powers of election grow stronger not weaker according as our knowledge increases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which was in Adam meaning his free-will that was it which grew with the increase of a man Therefore it was not lost by Adam But more pertinent to the present Questions are these words An innocent Martyr suffers like an infant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an infant neither committed actual sin or sin in himself neither hath he sinned before-hand that is properly in Adam to whose sin he gave no consent for else there can be no antithesis or opposition in the parts of his distinction â—â— sinned not actually in himself being one member the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sinning before being opposed to actual sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in himself must mean Original and in another And this he also expresly affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When Tatianus and the Encratites did design to prove marriage to be unlawful because it produced nothing but sinners and to that purpose urged those words of Job There is no man free from pollution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though his life be but of one day For so antiquity did generally quote the 25 of Job 4. following the Lxx which interpretâ— the place there being neither the same words nor the like sence in the Hebrew But that very Quotation had no small influence into the forward perswasions of the article concerning Original sin as is visible to them that have read the writings of the Ancient D. D. But to the things here objected Clemens replied Let them tell us theâ— how an infant newly born hath fornicated or polluted himself or how he is fallen under the curse of Adam he who hath done nothing He had no other way to extricate himself For if marriage produces none but sinners persons hated by God formally guilty of sin then as the Fruit is such is the Tree He answers True if it were so but marriage produces infants that are innocent and having done nothing evil yet they never deserved to fall under Adam's curse The effect of which is this that to them sickness and death is a misery but not formally a punishment because they are innocent and formally are no sinners Some to elude this testimony would make these words to be the words of the Encratites or Julius Cassianus but then they are no sence but a direct objection to themselves But the case is clear to them that read and understand and therefore the Learned and Good man Johannes Gerardus Vâ—ssius confesses down-right Clementem Alexandrinum non satis intellexisse peccatum Originale That he did not understand the doctrine of Original sin This only I add that he takes from the Objector that place of David In sin hath my mother conceived 〈◊〉 affirming that by my mother he means Eve and that she peccatrix concepit sed non peccatorem she was in sin when she conceived him but he was not in sin when he was conceived But the meaning of Clemens Alex. is easily to be understood to be consonant to truth and the usual doctrine of the first ages which makes Adam's sin to be ours by imputation but that no sin upon that title is inherent in us and Clemens Alex. understood the Question very well though not to the purposes of our new Opinions 21. Tertullian speaks of the sin of Adam several times but affirms not that we have any formal proper and inherent sin But that the soul of man is a sinner because it is unclean just as it was amongst the rites of Moses Law where legal impurity was called sin and that we derive from Adam a shame rather than a sin an ignominy or reproach like that of being born of dishonourable Parents or rather from the society of the flesh as he expresses it and that this dishonour lasts upon us till we enter upon a new relation in Christ. Ita omnis anima
that he hath been in great esteem with posterity And if that be all why the opinion of the following Ages shall be of more force then the opinion of the first Ages against whom Saint Austin in many things clearly did oppose himself I see no reason Or whether the first Ages were against him or no yet that he is approved by the following Ages is no better Argument for it makes his Authority not be innate but derived from the opinion of others and so to be precaria and to depend upon others who if they should change their opinions and such examples there have been many then there were nothing left to urge our consent to him which when it was at the best was onely this because he had the good fortune to be believed by them that came after he must be so still and because it was no Argument for the old Doctors before him this will not be very good in his behalf The same I say of any company of them I say not so of all of them it is to no purpose to say it for there is no Question this day in contestation in the explication of which all the old Writers did consent In the assignation of the Canon of Scripture they never did consent for six hundred years together and then by that time the Bishops had agreed indifferently well and but indifferently upon that they fell out in twenty more and except it be in the Apostles Creed and Articles of such nature there is nothing which may with any colour be called a consent much less Tradition Universal 4. But I will rather chuse to shew the uncertainty of this Topick by such an Argument which was not in the Fathers power to help such as makes no invasion upon their great reputation which I desire should be preserved as sacred as it ought For other things let who please reade M. Daillé du vray usage des Peres But I shall onely consider that the Writings of the Fathers have been so corrupted by the intermixture of Hereticks so many false books put forth in their names so many of their Writings lost which would more clearly have explicated their sense and at last an open profession made and a trade of making the Fathers speak not what themselves thought but what other men pleased that it is a great instance of God's providence and care of his Church that we have so much good preserved in the Writings which we receive from the Fathers and that all truth is not as clear gone as is the certainty of their great Authority and reputation 5. The publishing books with the inscription of great names began in Saint Paul's time for some had troubled the Church of Thessalonica with a false Epistle in Saint Paul's name against the inconvenience of which he arms them in 2 Thess. 2.1 And this encreased daily in the Church The Arians wrote an Epistle to Constantine under the name of Athanasius and the Eutychians wrote against Cyril of Alexandria under the name of Theodoret and of the Age in which the seventh Synod was kept Erasmus reports Libris falso celebrium virorum titulo commendatis scatere omnia It was then a publick business and a trick not more base then publick But it was more ancient then so and it is memorable in the books atributed to Saint Basil containing thirty Chapters De Spiritu Sancto whereof fifteen were plainly by another hand under the covert of Saint Basil as appears in the difference of the style in the impertinent digressions against the custome of that excellent man by some passages contradictory to others of Saint Basil by citing Meletius as dead before him who yet lived three years after him and by the very frame and manner of the discourse and yet it was so handsomly carried and so well served the purposes of men that it was indifferently quoted under the title of Saint Basil by many but without naming the number of Chapters and by Saint John Damascen in these words Basilius in opere triginta capitum de Spiritu Sancto ad Amphilochium and to the same purpose and in the number of 27 and 29 Chapters he is cited by Photius by Euthymius by Burchard by Zonaras Balsamon and Nicephorus But for this see more in Erasmus his Preface upon this book of Saint Basil. There is an Epistle goes still under the name of Saint Hierom ad Demetriadem virginem and is of great use in the Question of Predestination with its appendices and yet a very learned man 800 years agone did believe it to be written by a Pelagian and undertakes to confute divers parts of it as being high and confident Pelagianism and written by Julianus Episc. Eclanensis but Gregorius Ariminensis from Saint Austin affirms it to have been written by Pelagius himself I might instance in too many There is not any one of the Fathers who is esteemed Authour of any considerable number of books that hath escaped untouched But the abuse in this kind hath been so evident that now if any interessed person of any side be pressed with an Authority very pregnant against him he thinks to escape by accusing the Edition or the Authour or the hands it passed through or at last he therefore suspects it because it makes against him both sides being resolved that they are in the right the Authorities that they admit they will believe not to be against them and they which are too plainly against them shall be no Authorities And indeed the whole world hath been so much abused that every man thinks he hath reason to suspect whatsoever is against him that is what he pleaseth which proceeding onely produces this truth that there neither is nor can be any certainty nor very much probability in such Allegations 6. But there is a worse mischief then this besides those very many which are not yet discovered which like the pestilence destroys in the dark and grows into inconvenience more insensibly and more irremediably and that is corruption of particular places by inserting words and altering them to contrary senses a thing which the Fathers of the sixth General Synod complain'd of concerning the Constitutions of Saint Clement quibus jam olim ab iis qui à fide aliena sentiunt adulterina quaedam etiam à pietate aliena introducta sunt quae divinorum nobis Decretorum elegantem venustam speciem obscurârunt And so also have his Recognitions so have his Epistles been used if at least they were his at all particularly the fifth Decretall Epistle that goes under the name of Saint Clement in which community of Wives is taught upon the Authority of Saint Luke saying the first Christians had all things common if all things then Wives also says the Epistle a forgery like to have been done by some Nicolaitan or other impure person There is an Epistle of Cyril extant to Successus Bishop of Diocaesarea in which he relates
than they had a mind should be sav'd harmless Men would be safe alone or not at all supposing that their truth and good cause was warranty enough to preserve it self and they thought true it was indeed warranty enough against persecution if men had believed it to be truth but because we were fallen under the power of our worst enemies for Brethren turn'd enemies are ever the most implacable they looked upon us as men in misperswasion and error and therefore I was to defend our persons that whether our cause were right or wrong for it would be supposed wrong yet we might be permitted in liberty and impunity but then the Consequent would be this that if we when we were supposed to be in error were yet to be indemnified then others also whom we thought as ill of were to rejoyce in the same freedom because this equality is the great instrument of justice and if we would not do to others as we desir'd should be done to us we were no more to pretend Religion because we destroy the Law and the Prophets Of this some men were impatient and they would have all the world spare them and yet they would spare no body But because this is too unreasonable I need no excuse for my speaking to other purposes Others complain'd that it would have evil effects and all Heresies would enter at the gate of toleration and because I knew that they would croud and throng in as far as they could I placed such guards and restraints there as might keep out all unreasonable pretenders allowing none to enter here that speak against the Apostles Creed or weakened the hands of Government or were enemies to good life But the most complain'd that in my ways to perswade a toleration I helped some men too far and that I arm'd the Anabaptists with swords instead of shields with a power to offend us besides the proper defensatives of their own To this I shall need no reply but this I was to say what I could to make their persons safe by shewing how probably they were deceived and they who thought it too much had either too little confidence or too little knowledge of the goodness of their own cause and yet if any one made ill use of it it was more than I allowed or intended to him but so all kindness may be abused But if a Criminal be allowed Counsel he would be scorned if he should avow his Advocate as a real Patron of his crime when he only says what he can to alleviate the Sentence But wise men understand the thing and are satisfied but because all men are not of equal strength I did not only in a Discourse on purpose demonstrate the true doctrine in that question but I have now in this Edition of that Book answered all their pretensions not only fearing lest some be hurt with their offensive arms but lest others like Tarpeia the Roman Lady be oppressed with shields and be brought to think well of their Cause by my pleading for their persons And now My Lord I have done all that I can do or can be desired only I cannot repent me of speaking truth or doing charity but when the loyns of the Presbytery did lie heavy upon us and were like to crush us into flatness and death I ought not to have been reproached for standing under the ruine and endeavouring to defend my Brethren and if I had strain'd his arm whom I was lifting up from drowning he should have deplor'd his own necessity and not have reproved my charity if I say I had been too zealous to preserve them whom I ought to love so zealously But I have been told that my Discourse of Episcopacy relying so much upon the Authority of Fathers and Councils whose authority I so much diminish in my Liberty of Prophesying I seem to pull down with one hand what I build with the other To these men I am used to answer that they ought not to wonder to see a man pull down his Out-houses to save his Father and his Children from the flames and therefore if I had wholly destroyed the Topick of Ecclesiastical Antiquity which is but an outward Guard to Episcopacy to preserve the whole Ecclesiastical order I might have been too zealous but in no other account culpable But my Lord I have done nothing of this as they mistake For Episcopacy relies not upon the Authority of Fathers and Councils but upon Scripture upon the institution of Christ or the institution of the Apostles upon an universal Tradition and an universal practice not upon the words and opinions of the Doctors It hath as great a testimony as Scripture it self hath and it is such a government as although every thing in Antiquity does minister to it and illustrate or confirm it yet since it was before the Fathers and Councils and was in full power before they had a being and they were made up of Bishops for the most part they can give no authority to themselves as a body does not beget it self or give strength to that from whence themselves had warranty integrity and constitution We bring the sayings of the Fathers in behalf of Episcopacy because the reputation they have justly purchased from posterity prevails with some and their reason with others and their practice with very many and the pretensions of the adversaries are too weak to withstand that strength But that Episcopacy derives from a higher Fountain appears by the Justifications of it against them who value not what the Fathers say But now he that says that Episcopacy besides all its own proper grounds hath also the witness of Antiquity to have descended from Christ and his Apostles and he that says that in Questions of Religion the Sayings of the Fathers alone is no demonstration of Faith does not speak things contradictory He that says that we may dissent from the Fathers when we have a reason greater than that authority does no way oppose him that says you ought not to dissent from what they say when you have no reason great enough to out-weigh it He that says the words of the Fathers are not sufficient to determine a nice Question stands not against him who says they are excellent Corroboratives in a Question already determined and practised accordingly He that says the Sayings of Fathers are no demonstration in a Question may say true and yet he that says it is a degree of probability may say true too He that says they are not our Masters speaks consonantly to the words of Christ but he that denies them to be good Instructors does not speak agreeably to reason or to the sence of the Church Sometimes they are excellent Arbitrators but not always good Judges In matters of Fact they are excellent Witnesses In matters of Right or Question they are rare Doctors and because they bring good Arguments are to be valued accordingly and he that considers these things will find that Ecclesiastical Antiquity can
Seventhly It is a scandal and makes way for Heathen Idolatry 549 7. Of picturing God the Father and the H. Trinity 550 The testimonies of Tertullian Eusebius and S. Hierome alledged in the Dissuasive vindicated from the Romanists exceptions as also the testimonies of S. Austin Theodoret Damascen Nicephorus 552 553. An answer to that reply of theirs of painting the Essence of God the Father 550 551. The Doctrine and Practice of Repentance Chap. I. THE Foundation and Necessity of Repentance 573 Sect. 1. Of the indispensable Necessity of Repentance in remedy to the unavoidable transgressing of the Covenant of Works 573 2. Of the possibility or impossibility of keeping the Precepts of the Gospel 576 First The Law of God is naturally possible to be kept but not morally 576. n. 15. ad 32. Secondly How we are to understand the Divine Justice in exacting a Law so impossible 580. n. 32. ad 35. Thirdly Since God exacteth not an impossible Law how does it consist with his wisdom to impose what in justice he does not exact 581. n. 35. c sequ 3. How Repentance and the Precept of perfection Evangelical can stand together 582 4. The former doctrine reduced to practice The new and old Covenant as they are expressed in the words of Scripture 587 Chap. II. Of the nature and definition of Repentance and what parts of duty are signified by it in Scripture 596 Sect. 1. The notion of those words that in the Greek and Latin languages express Repentance with the definition and parts of it 596 2. Of Repentance in general or Conversion 599 3. Descriptions of Repentance taken from the H. Scriptures 604 The indispensable necessity of a good life represented in the words of Scripture 606 Chap. III. Of the distinction of Sins Mortal and Venial in what sence to be admitted and how the smallest Sins are to be repented of and expiated 610 Sect. 1. The inconvenience as to the conduct of Conscience in distinguishing Sins into Mortal and Venial in their own nature or kind ibid. 2. Of the difference of sins and their measures 611 3. That all sins are punishable if God please even with the pains of Hell 614 4. The former doctrine reduced to practice 623. n. 36. 5. To deny that there is a sort of sins that are Venial in their own nature how it is consistent with that doctrine which teaches the possibility of keeping the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and with the righteousness of David Zechary and Elizabeth 625. n. 4. Some more particular measures of practice 626. n. 46. 6. What Repentance is necessary for the more Venial sins 630 Chap. IV. Of actual single sins and what Repentance is proper for them 635 Sect. 1. A Catalogue of sins that are severely threatned in Scripture of which men commonly believe not such hard things 635 2. Whether every single act of the fore-enumerated sins puts a man out of Gods favour 640 3. What Repentance is necessary for single acts of sin 646 Chap. V. Of Habitual Sins and manner of eradication or cure and their proper instruments of pardon 652 Sect. 1. The state of the Question ibid. 2. Every man is bound to Repent of his sin assoon as he hath committed it 654 3. A sinful habit hath in it proper evils and a proper guiltiness of its own besides all that which came directly from the single actions 658 Of sinful habits 1o. in their natural capacity 659 2o. in their moral capacity 661 First they add many degrees of aversation from God ibid. Secondly they imply not only a facility but a necessity of sinning 662 Thirdly they make our Repentance more difficult 663 Fourthly they make us swallow a great sin as easily as a smaller 664 Fifthly they keep us always out of Gods favour 665 3o. in their relative capacity in reference to our aversation from God 665 4. Sinful habits do require a distinct manner of Repentance and have no promise to be pardoned but by the introduction of the contrary 669. n. 32. Against the repentance of Clinicks ibid. 5. Consideration of seven objections against the doctrine in the foregoing Section 675 6. The former doctrine reduced to practice 687 1o. The Repentance of habitual sinners who return in their vigorous years ibid. 2o. The Repentance of sinners that return not till their old age 692 3o. How sinners are to be treated who Repent not till their death-bed 695 First what hopes are left to an ill-liv'd man that Repents in his death-bed and not before ibid. Secondly what advices can bring such a one most advantage 700 Chap. VI. Of Concupiscence and Original Sin whether or no and how far we are bound to repent of it 709 Sect. 1. The doctrine explained and proved out of the Scripture ibid. 2. Consideration of the objections against the former doctrine 720 3. How God punisheth the Fathers sin upon the children 725 4. Of the causes of the universal wickedness of mankind n. 66. 727 5. Of liberty of Election remaining after Adams fall n. 71. 730 6. The practical Question 733 7. Advices relating to the matter of Original sin 714 8. Rules and measures of deportment when a curse is feared to descend upon children for their Parents fault 738 Chap. VII A farther explication of the doctrine of Original Sin 747 Sect. 1. Of the fall of Adam and the effects of it upon him and us 747 2. Adams sin is in us no more than an imputed sin and how it is so 751 3. The doctrine of the ancient Father's was that free will remained in us after the fall 753 4. Adams sin is not imputed to us to our damnation 755 5. The doctrine of antiquity in this whole matter 757 6. An exposition of the Ninth Article of the Church of England which is of Original Sin shewing that the former doctrine contradicts not that Article 763 Chap. VIII Of sins of Infirmity and their remedy 770 Sect. 1. Of the state of Infirmity and its first remedy ibid. 2. An exposition and vindication of that Text Rom. 7.15 ad 20. which by the mistake of some is thought to mean the state of Infirmity in the regenerate 772 3. S. Augustines exposition of those words taken up after his retractation considered 775 4. The true meaning of that Text of the Apostle fully decreed and vindicated 777 1o. That S. Paul speaks not in his own person but of one unregenerate by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. 2o. that the state he describes is the state of a carnal man under the corruption of his nature ibid. 3o. from this state we are redeemed by Christ and his grace which is the second remedy 779 5. How far an unregenerate man may go in the ways of piety and religion 779 1o. An unregenerate man may be instructed in and convinced of his duty and approve the Law and confâ—ss the obligation 780 2o. he may in his will delight in goodness and desire it earnestly 781 3o. he may not only
now nothing but the Litany and Collects to be accounted for for the matter of which I shall need to say nothing because the Objections whatsoever have been against them are extremely low and rather like the intemperate talk of an angry child than pressures of reason or probability excepting where they are charg'd with their vertues for their charity in praying for all men for their humility in acknowledging such a worthlesness in our selves as not to dare to ask our petitions upon our own confidences These things fall like water against a rock or like the accusations against our blessed Saviour the unreasonableness of them splits themselves 29. But for the form I think themselves will make answer when they consider that they are nothing but a pursuit of that Apostolical precept which next to the Lords Prayer was the first Scripture pattern whence the Church fram'd her Liturgies First of all let there be made intercessions and prayers and supplications and giving of thanks for all men In which words if there be not an impertinent repetition of divers words to the same sence then needs must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be as much distinct from each other in their form as they are all from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 30. S. Augustine expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prayers made in and about the blessed Eucharist Ideo in hujus sanctificatione distributionis praeparatione existimo Apostolum jussisse proprie fieri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est orationes Interpellationes autem vel postulationes fiunt cum populus benedicitur 31. But S. Augustine if he were not deceived in his Criticism says that beside the general name of Prayer which is signified by all those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture signifies votum or desire such surely as we express by sudden and short emissions and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but a prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is but an expression of short and ejaculatory desires and may be better applied to such forms of prayer as are our Collects rather than the longer and more solemn parts of the Canon of Communion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it signifie an address to God yet it may with propriety enough be applied to our interlocutory prayers where the people bear a share for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies congressum or colloquium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isocrat make no frequent societies or confederations with them However although Grammarians may differ in assigning these several words to their proper minute and incommunicable signification yet it is most clear that they mean not prayers distinct and made several by the variety of matter but several addresses differing only in modo orandi and therefore by these are intended the several forms of prayer and supplication and the Church hath at all times used prayers of all variety long and short ejaculatory determined and solemn And the Church of England understood it in this variety calling the short ejaculatory prayers and responsories by the names of Litanies or suffrages which I should render in the phrase of S. Austin to be postulationes or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the longer Collects he calls prayers which is the true rendring of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I suppose and therefore twice in the Litany after the short responsories the Priest says Let us pray by that minding the people of the Apostles precept that prayer as well as supplications be made * For the Litanies it is certain the form is of great antiquity Mamercus Bishop of Vienna made solemn Litanies 400. years after Christ and he and all his Diocess repeated them together And therefore I know not what matter of doubt there can be reasonable in the form since besides that we have the wisdom of so many ages and holy and prudent persons to confirm them the form is made with design to represent all the needs of the Catholick Church and to make the prayer it self fitted for an active and an intense devotion and that it cooperates rarely well to these ends is so true that of the first every man is judge of the second every man may be judge that will without prejudice with pious predispositions use the form for if they help my devotion infinitely they may do as much to another if he be disposed as I am and he that says they do no advantage or singular relish to my spirit may as well tell me the meat I eat does not please me because he loves it not but the exceptions which are against it are so phantastick and by chance that unless it be against a single adversary and by personal engagement they cannot be noted in the series of a positive discourse Sometimes they are too long and sometimes they are too short and yet the objectors will make longer and shorter when they please and because no law of God hath prescribed to us in such circumstances if the Church leaves the same liberty to their private devotions it is not reasonable they should prescribe to her in publick and in such minutes in which the ordinary prudence of one wise man is abundantly sufficient to give him Laws and directions and in matters of greater difficulty 32. Of the same consideration is the form of our Church Collects which are made pleasant by their variety of matter are made energetical and potent by that great endearment of per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum are cleared from a neighbourhood of tediousness by their so quick intercision and breakings off and have for their precedent the forms of Prayer used by the religious of Palestine mentioned by Cassian Et hae fuerunt Monachorum jaculatoriae orationes ut frequentius Dominum deprecantes jugiter eidem cohaerere possimus ut insidiantis Diaboli jacula quae infligere nobis tum praecipue insistit cum oramus succincta vitemus brevitate In all these forms of prayer there is no difference but what is circumstantial and therefore although these circumstances be of great efficacy for the procuring of accidental advantages to our spirits which are often swayed moved and determined by a manner as much as by an essence yet there is in it nothing of duty and obligation and therefore it is the most unreasonable thing in the world to make any of these things to be a question of Religion 33. I shall therefore press these things no further but note that since all Liturgy is and ever was either prose or verse or both and the Liturgy of the Church of England as well as most others is of the last sort I consider that whatsoever is in her devotions besides the Lessons Epistles and Gospels the body of which is no other thing than was the famous Lectionarium of S. Jerome is a compliance with these two dictates of the Apostle for Liturgy the which one for verse the other for prose in 1 Psalms and 2 Hymns and 3 Spiritual songs for verse for prose
elaborentur gratiora tamen quae suâ sponte nascuntur And a garment may as well be made to fit the Moon as that one form of Prayer should be made apt and proportionable to all men or to any man at all times Sect. 52. THIS Discourse relies wholly upon these two grounds A liberty to use variety of forms for prayer is more for the edification of the Church Secondly it is part of that liberty which the Church hath and part of the duty of the Church to preserve the liberty of the Spirit in various forms Sect. 53. BEFORE I descend to consideration of the particulars I must premise this that the gift or ability of prayer given to the Church is used either in publick or in private and that which is fit enough for one is inconvenient in the other and although a liberty in private may be for edification of good people when it is piously and discreetly used yet in the publick if it were indifferently permitted it would bring infinite inconvenience and become intolerable as a sad experience doth too much verifie Sect. 54. BUT now then this distinction evacuates all the former discourse and since it is permitted that every man in private use what forms he please the Spirit hath all that liberty that is necessary and so much as can be convenient the Church may be edified by every mans gift the affections of all men may be complied withall words may be fitted to their fancies their devotions quickned their weariness helped and supported and whatsoever benefit may be fancied by variety and liberty all that may be enjoyed and every reasonable desire or weaker fancy be fully satisfied Sect. 55. BUT since these advantages to devotion are accidental and do consult with weakness and infirmity and depend upon irregular variety for which no antecedent rule can make particular provision it is not to be expected the publick constitution and prescribed forms which are regular orderly and determin'd can make provision for particulars for chances and for infinite varieties And if this were any objection against publick forms it would also conclude against all humane Laws that they did not make provision for all particular accidents and circumstances that might possibly occurr All publick sanctions must be of a publick spirit and design and secure all those excellent things which have influence upon societies and communities of men and publick obligations Sect. 56. THUS if publick forms of Prayer be describ'd whose matter is pious and holy whose design is of universal extent and provisionary for all publick probable fear'd or foreseen events whose frame and composure is prudent and by authority competent and high and whose use and exercise is instrumental to peace and publick charity and all these hallowed by intention and care of doing glory to God and advantages to Religion express'd in observation of all such rules and precedents as are most likely to teach us best and guide us surest such as are Scriptures Apostolical Tradition Primitive practice and precedents of Saints and holy Persons the publick can do no more all the duty is performed and all the care is taken Sect. 57. NOW after all this there are personal necessities and private conveniencies or inconveniencies which if men are not so wise as themselves to provide for by casting off all prejudice and endeavouring to grow strong in Christianity men in Christ and not for ever to be Babes in Religion but frame themselves to a capacity of receiving the benefit of the publick without needing other provisions than what will fit the Church in her publick capacity the Spirit of God and the Church taught by him hath permitted us to comply with our own infirmities while they are innocent and to pray in private in any form of words which shall be most instrumental to our devotion in the present capacity Neque hoc ego ago ut ex tempore dicere malit sed ut possit Sect. 58. AND indeed sometimes an exuberant and an active affection and overflowing of Devotion may descend like anointing from above and our cup run over and is not to be contained within the margent of prescribed forms And though this be not of so great consideration as if it should happen to a man in publick that it is then fit for him or to be permitted to express it in forms unlimited and undetermin'd For there was a case in the dayes of the inundation of the Spirit when a man full of the Spirit was commanded to keep silence in the Church and to speak to himself and to God yet when this grace is given him in private he may compose his own Liturgy pectus enim est quod disertos facit vis mentis Ideoque imperitis quoque si modò sint aliquo affectu concitati verba non desunt Only when in private devotion we use forms of our own making or chusing we are concern'd to see that the matter be pious apt for edification and the present necessity and without contempt of publick prescriptions or irreverence to God and in all the rest we are at liberty only in the Lord that is according to the rule of faith and the analogy of Christian Religion For supposing that our devotion be fervent our intention pious and the petition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the will of God Whatsoever our expressions are God reads the petition in the Character of the spirit though the words be brevia concisa singultantium modo ejecta But then these accidental advantages and circumstances of profit which may be provided for in private as they cannot be taken care of in publick so neither is it necessary they should for those pleasures of sensible devotion are so far from being necessary to the acceptation of prayer that they are but compliances with our infirmities and suppose a great weakness in him that needs them say the Masters of spiritual life and in the strongest prayers and most effectual devotions are seldomest found such as was Moses prayer when he spake nothing and Hannah's and our blessed Saviour's when he called upon his Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with strong cries in that great desertion of spirit when he prayed in the Garden In these prayers the spirit was bound up with the strictness and violence of intention but could not ease it self with a flood of language and various expression A great devotion is like a great grief not so expressive as a moderate passion tears spend the grief and variety of language breaths out the devotion and therefore Christ went thrice and said the same words he could just speak his sence in a plain expression but the greatness of his agony was too big for the pleasure of a sweet and sensible expression of devotion Sect. 59. SO that let the devotion be never so great set forms of prayer will be expressive enough of any desire though importunate as extremity it self but when the spirit is
applicable to particular instances so that first since the Spirit being the great Dictator of holy prayers and secondly the Spirit is promised to the Church in her united capacity and thirdly in proportion to the Assembled caeteris paribus so are measures of the Spirit powred out and fourthly when the Church is assembled the Prayers which they teach the People are limited and prescribed forms it follows that limited and prescribed forms are in all reason emanations from the greatest portion of the Spirit warranted by special promises which are made to every man there present that does his duty as a private Member of the Christian Church and are due to him as a Ruler of the Church and yet more especially and in a further degree to all them met together where if ever the holy Spirit gives such helps and graces which relate to the publick government and have influence upon the communities of Christians that is will bless their meeting and give them such assistances as will enable them to do the work for which they convene Sect. 71. But yet if any man shall say what need the Church meet in publick Synods to make forms of Prayer when private Ministers are able to do it in their several Parishes I answer It is true Many can but they cannot do it better than a Councel and I think no man is so impudent as to say he can do it so well however quod spectat ad omnes ab omnibus tractari debet the matter is of publick concernment and therefore should be of publick consultation and the advantages of publickly describ'd forms I shall afterwards specifie In the mean time Sect. 72. FIFTHLY And the Church I mean the Rulers of the Church are appointed Presidents of Religious rites and as the Rulers in conjunction are enabled to do it best by the advantages of special promises and double portions of the Spirit so she always did practise this either in conjunction or by single dictate by publick persons or united authority but in all times as necessity required they prescribed set Forms of Prayer Sect. 73. IF I should descend to minutes and particulars I could instance in the behalf of set Forms that First God prescribed to Moses a set Form of Prayer and benediction to be used when he did bless the people Secondly That Moses composed a Song or Hymn for the children of Israel to use to all their generations Thirdly that David composed many for the service of the Tabernacle and every company of singers was tyed to certain Psalms as the very titles intimate and the Psalms were such limited and determinate prescriptions that in some Gods Spirit did dind them to the very number of the Letters and order of the Alphabet Fourthly That Solomon and the holy Kings of Judah brought them in and continued them in the ministration of the Temple Fifthly That in the reformation by Hezekiah the Priests and Levites were commanded to praise the Lord in the words of David and Asaph Sixthly That all Scripture is written for our learning and since all these and many more set Forms of Prayer are left there upon record it is more than probable that they were left there for our use and devotion and certainly it is as lawful and as prudent to pray Scriptures as to read Scriptures and it were well if we would use our selves to the expression of Scripture and that the language of God were familiar to us that we spake the words of Canaan not the speech of Ashdod and time was when it was thought the greatest Ornament of a spiritual Person and Instrument of a Religious conversation but then the consequents would be that these Prayers were the best Forms which were in the words of Scripture and those Psalms and Prayers there recorded were the best devotions but these are set Forms * 7. To this purpose I could instance in the example of Saint John Baptist who taught his Disciples a form of prayer and that Christ's Disciples begged the same favour and it was granted as they desired it Sect. 74. AND here I mean to fix a little for this ground cannot fail us I say Christ prescribed a set Form of Prayer to be used by all his Disciples as a Breviary of Prayer as a rule of their devotions as a repository of their needs and as a direct address to God For in this Prayer God did not only command us to make our Prayers as Moses was bid to make the Tabernacle after the pattern which God shewed him in the Mount and Christ shewed his Apostles but he hath given us the very Tables written with his own hand that we should use them as they are so delivered this Prayer was not only a precedent and pattern but an instance of address a perfect form for our practice as well as imitation For Sect. 75. FIRST When Christ was upon the Mount he gave it for a pattern 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So pray ye or after this manner which if we expound only to the sence of becoming a pattern or a Directory it is observable that it is not only directory for the matter but for the manner too and if we must pray with that matter and in that manner what does that differ from praying with that form however it is well enough that it becomes a precedent to us in any sence and the Church may vary her forms according as she judges best for edification Sect. 76. SECONDLY When the Apostles upon occasion of the Form which the Baptist taught his Disciples begged of their Master to teach them one he again taught them this and added a precept to use these very words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when ye pray say Our Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they spake to God it was fit they should speak in his words in whose Name also their prayers only could be acceptable Sect. 77. THIRDLY For if we must speak this sence why also are not the very words to be retained Is there any error or imperfection in the words Was not Christ Master of his language And were not his words sufficiently expressive of his sence Will not the Prayer do well also in our tongues which as a duty we are obliged to deposite in our hearts and preserve in our memories without which it is in all sences useless whether it be only a pattern or a repository of matter Sect. 78. FOURTHLY And it is observable that our blessed Saviour doth not say Pray that the Name of your heavenly Father may be sanctified or that your sins may be forgiven but say Hallowed be thy name c. so that he prescribes this Prayer not in massa materiae by in forma verborum not in a confused heap of matter but in an exact composure of words it makes it evident he intended it not only pro regula petendorum for a direction of what things we are to ask but also pro forma orationis for a
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
the main observation * Thus also it was in the Church of Ephesus for Saint Paul writing to their Bishop and giving order for the constitution and deportment of the Church Orders and Officers gives directions first for Bishops then for Deacons Where are the Presbyters in the interim Either they must be comprehended in Bishops or in Deacons They may as well be in one as the other for Diaconus is not in Scripture any more appropriated to the inferiour Clergy than Episcopus to the Superiour nor so much neither For Episcopus was never used in the new Testament for any but such as had the care regiment and supra-vision of a Church but Diaconus was used generally for all Ministeries But yet supposing that Presbyters were included under the word Episcopus yet it is not because the Offices and Orders are one but because that the order of a Presbyter is comprehended within the dignity of a Bishop And then indeed the compellation is of the more principal and the Presbyter is also comprehended for his conjunction and involution in the Superiour which was the Principal observation here intended Nam in Episcopo omnes ordines sunt quia primus Sacerdos est hoc est Princeps est Sacerdotum Propheta Evangelista caetera adimplenda officia Ecclesiae in Ministerio Fidelium saith Saint Ambrose So that if in the description of the qualifications of a Bishop he intends to qualifie Presbyters also then it is principally intended for a Bishop and of the Presbyters only by way of subordination and comprehension This only by the way because this place is also abused to other issues To be sure it is but a vain dream that because Presbyter is not nam'd that therefore it is all one with a Bishop when as it may be comprehended under Bishop as a part in the whole or the inferiour within the superiour the office of a Bishop having in it the office of a Presbyter and something more or else it may be as well intended in the word Deacons and rather than the word Bishop 1. Because Bishop is spoken of in the singular number Deacons in the Plural and so liker to comprehend the multitude of Presbyters 2. Presbyters or else Bishops and therefore much more Presbyters are called by Saint Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministers Deacons is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deacons by whose ministration ye believed and 3. By the same argument Deacons may be as well one with the Bishop too for in the Epistle to Titus Saint Paul describes the office of a Bishop and sayes not a word more either of Presbyter or Deacons office and why I pray may not the office of Presbyters in the Epistle to Timothy be omitted as well as Presbyters and Deacons too in that to Titus or else why may not Deacons be confounded and be all one with Bishop as well as Presbyter It will it must be so if this argument were any thing else but an aery and impertinent nothing After all this yet it cannot be shown in Scripture that any one single and meer Presbyter is called a Bishop but may be often found that a Bishop nay an Apostle is called a Presbyter as in the instances above and therefore since this communication of Names is only in descension by reason of the involution or comprehension of Presbyter within Episcopus but never in ascension that is an Apostle or a Bishop is often called Presbyter and Deacon and Prophet and Pastor and Doctor but never retrò that a meer Deacon or a meer Presbyter should be called either Bishop or Apostle it can never be brought either to depress the order of Bishops below their throne or erect meer Presbyters above their Stalls in the Quire For we may as well confound Apostle and Deacon and with clearer probability than Episcopus and Presbyter For Apostles and Bishops are in Scripture often called Deacons I gave one Instance of this before but there are very many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was said of Saint Matthias when he succeeded Judas in the Apostolate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Saint Paul to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus Saint Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Deacon of the New Testament and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said of the first founders of the Corinthian Church Deacons by whom ye believed Paul and Apollos were the men It is the observation of Saint Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a Bishop was called a Deacon wherefore writing to Timothy he saith to him being a Bishop Fulfil thy Deaconship * Add to this that there is no word or designation of any Clerical office but is given to Bishops and Apostles The Apostles are called Prophets Acts 13. The Prophets at Antioch were Lucius and Manaën and Paul and Barnabas and then they are called Pastors too and indeed hoc ipso that they are Bishops they are Pastors â—piritus S. posuit vos Episcopos Pascere Ecclesiam Dei Whereupon the Greek Scholiast expounds the word Pastor to signifie Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And ever since that Saint Peter set us a copy in the compellation of the Prototype calling him the Great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls it hath obtained in all antiquity that Pastors and Bishops are coincident and we shall very hardly meet with an instance to the contrary * If Bishops be Pastors then they are Doctors also for these are conjunct when other offices which may in person be united yet in themselves are made disparate For God hath given some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Pastors then also Doctors and Teachers And this is observed by S. Austin Pastors and Doctors whom you would have me to distinguish I think are one and the same For Paul doth not say some Pastors some Doctors but to Pastors he joyneth Doctors that Pastors might understand it belongeth to their office to teach The same also is affirmed by Sedulius upon this place Thus it was in Scripture But after the Churches were settled and Bishops fixt upon their several Sees then the Names also were made distinct only those Names which did design temporary Offices did expire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostom Thus far the names were common viz. in the sence above explicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But immediately the names were made proper and distinct and to every Order it s own Name is left of a Bishop to a Bishop of a Presbyter to a Presbyter * This could not be supposed at first for when they were to borrow words from the titles of secular honour or offices and to transplant them to an artificial and imposed sence Vse which is the Master of language must rule us in this affair and Vse is not contracted but in some process and descent of time * For at first Christendom it self wanted a name and the Disciples of the Glorious Nazarene were
in those places where the Bishops are exauctorated and no where else that I know but amongst those men that have complying designs the word Pastor is given to Parish Priests against the manner and usage of Ancient Christendom and though Priests may be called Pastors in a limited subordinate sence and by way of participation just as they may be called Angels when the Bishop is the Angel and so Pastors when the Bishop is the Pastor and so they are called Pastores ovium in Saint Cyprian but never are they called Pastores simply or Pastores Ecclesiae for above 600. years in the Church and I think 800. more And therefore it was good counsel which S. Paul gave to avoid vocum Novitates because there is never any affectation of new words contrary to the Ancient voice of Christendom but there is some design in the thing too to make an innovation and of this we have had long warning in the new use of the word Pastor SECT XXVI And Doctor IF Bishops were the Pastors then Doctors also it was the observation which S. Augustin made out of Ephes. 4. as I quoted him even now For God hath given some Apostles some Prophets some Pastors and Doctors So the Church hath learn'd to speak In the Greeks Councel of Carthage it was decreed that places which never had a Bishop of their own should not now have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Doctor of their own that is a Bishop but still be subject to the Bishop of the Diocess to whom formerly they gave obedience and the title of the Chapter is that the parts of the Diocess without the Bishops consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not have another Bishop He who in the Title is called Bishop in the Chapter is called the Doctor And thus also Epiphanius speaking of Bishops calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fathers and Doctors Gratia enim Ecclesiae laus Doctoris est saith Saint Ambrose speaking of the eminence of the Bishop over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy The same also is to be seen in Saint Austin Sedulius and divers others I deny not but it is in this appellative as in divers of the rest that the Presbyters may in subordination be also called Doctors for every Presbyter must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt to teach but yet this is expressed as a requisite in the particular office of a Bishop and no where expresly of a Presbyter that I can find in Scripture but yet because in all Churches it was by licence of the Bishop that Presbyters did Preach if at all and in some Churches the Bishop only did it particularly of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Sozomen therefore it was that the Presbyter in the language of the Church was not but the Bishop was often called Doctor of the Church SECT XXVII And Pontifex THE next word which the Primitive Church did use as proper to express the offices and eminence of Bishops is Pontifex and Pontificatus for Episcopacy Sed à Domino edocti consequentiam rerum Episcopis Pontificatus munera assignavimus said the Apostles as 1. Saint Clement reports Pontificale 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saint John the Apostle wore in his Forehead as an Ensign of his Apostleship a gold plate or medal when he was in Pontificalibus in his Pontifical or Apostolical habit saith Eusebius 2. De dispensationibus Ecclesiarum Antiqua sanctio tenuit definitio SS Patrum in Nicaeâ convenientium .... si Pontifices voluerint ut cum eis vicini propter utilitatem celebrent ordinationes Said the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople 3. Quâ tempestate in urbe Româ Clemens quoque tertius post Paulum Petrum Pontificatum tenebat saith 4. Eusebius according to the translation of Ruffinus Apud Antiochiani vero Theophilus per idem tempus sextus ab Apostolis Ecclesiae Pontificatum tenebat saith the same Eusebius 5. And there is a famous story of Alexander Bishop of Cappadocia that when Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem was invalid and unfit for government by reason of his extream age he was designed by a particular Revelation and a voice from Heaven Suscipite Episcopum qui vobis à Deo destinatus est Receive your Bishop whom God hath appointed for you but it was when Narcissus jam senio sessus Pontificatus Ministerio sufficere non possit saith the story 6. Eulogius the confessor discoursing with the Prefect that wished him to comply with the Emperour asked him Numquid ille unà cum Imperio etiam Pontificatum est consequutus He hath an Empire but hath he also a Bishoprick Pontificatus is the word But 7. S. Dionysius is very exact in the distinction of clerical offices and particularly gives this account of the present Est igitur Pontificatus ordo qui praeditus vi perficiente munera hierarchiae quae perficiunt c. And a little after Sacerdotum autem ordo subjectus Pontificum ordini c. To which agrees 8. S. Isidore in his etymologies Ideo autem Presbyteri Sacerdotes vocantur quia sacrum dant sicut Episcopi qui licet Sacerdotes sint tamen Pontificatus apicem non habent quia nec Chrismate frontem signant nec Paracletum spiritum dant quod solis deberi Episcopis lectio actuum Apostolicorum demonstrat and in the same chapter Pontifex Princeps Sacerdotum est One word more there is often used in antiquity for Bishops and that 's Sacerdos Sacerdotum autem bipartitus est ordo say S. Clement and Anacletus for they are Majores and Minores The Majores Bishops the Minores Presbyters for so it is in the Apostolical Constitutions attributed to S. Clement Episcopis quidem assignavimus attribuimus quae ad Principatum Sacerdotii pertinent Presbyteris vero quae ad Sacerdotium And in S. Cyprian Presbyteri cum Episcopis Sacerdotali honore conjuncti But although in such distinction and subordination and in concretion a Presbyter is sometimes called Sacerdos yet in Antiquity Sacerdotium Ecclesiae does evermore signifie Episcopacy and Sacerdos Ecclesiae the Bishop Theotecnus Sacerdotium Ecclesiae tenens in Episcopatu saith Eusebius and summus Sacerdos the Bishop always Dandi baptismum jus habet summus Sacerdos qui est Episcopus saith Tertullian and indeed Sacerdos alone is very seldome used in any respect but for the Bishop unless when there is some distinctive term and of higher report given to the Bishop at the same time Ecclesiae est plebs Sacerdoti adunata Grex pastori suo adhaerens saith S. Cyprian And that we may know by Sacerdos he means the Bishop his next words are Vnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesiâ esse Ecclesiam in Episcopo And in the same Epistle qui ad Cyprianum Episcopum in carcere literas direxerunt Sacerdotem Dei agnoscentes contestantes * Eusebius reckoning some of the
Episcopus B. Jacobus à Petro Jacobo Johanne Apostolis est ordinatus Three Apostles went to the ordaining of S. James to be a Bishop and the self same thing is in words affirmed by Anicetus ut in ore duorum vel trium stet omnis veritas And S. Cyprian observes that when Cornelius was made Bishop of Rome there happened to be many of his fellow Bishops there factus est Episcopus à plurimis collegis nostris qui tunc in urbe Româ aderant These Collegae could not be meer Priests for then the ordination of Novatus had been more Canonical than that of Cornelius and all Christendome had been deceived for not Novatus who was ordained by three Bishops but Cornelius had been the schismatick as being ordained by Priests against the Canon But here I observe it for the word plurimis there were many of them at that ordination In pursuance of this Apostolical ordinance the Nicene Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by all the Bishops in the Province unless it be in case of necessity and then it must be done by three being gathered together and the rest consenting so the ordination to be performed The same is ratified in the council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Bishop is not to be ordained without a Synod of Bishops and the presence of the Metropolitan of the province But if this cannot be done conveniently yet however it is required 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ordinations must be performed by many The same was decreed in the Council of Laodicea can 12. in the 13 Canon of the African Code in the 22 Canon of the first Council of Arles and the fifth Canon of the second Council of Arles and was ever the practice of the Church and so we may see it descend through the bowels of the fourth Council of Carthage to the inferiour ages Episcopus quum ordinatur duo Episcopi ponant teneant Evangeliorum codicem super caput cervicem ejus uno super eum fundente benedictionem reliqui omnes Episcopi qui adsunt manibus suis caput ejus tangant The thing was Catholick and Canonical It was prima immutabilis constitutio so the first Canon of the Council of Epaunum calls it And therefore after the death of Meletius Bishop of Antioch a schism was made about his successor and Evagrius his ordination condemned because praeter Ecclesiasticam regulam fuerit ordinatus it was against the rule of Holy Church Why so Solus enim Paulinus eum instituerat plurimas regulas praevaricatus Ecclesiasticas Non enim praecipiunt ut per se quilibet ordinare possit sed convocare Vniversos provinciae Sacerdotes praeter per tres Pontifices ordinationem penitus fieri interdicunt Which because it was not observed in the ordination of Evagrius who was not ordained by three Bishops the ordination was cassated in the Council of Rhegium And we read that when Novatus would fain be made a Bishop in the schism against Cornelius he did it tribus adhibitis Episcopis saith Eusebius he obtained three Bishops for performance of the action Now besides these Apostolical and Catholick Canons and precedents this thing according to the constant and United interpretation of the Greek Fathers was actually done in the ordination of S. Timothy to the Bishoprick of Ephesus Neglect not the grace that is in thee by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery The Latin Fathers expound it abstractly viz. to signifie the office of Priest-hood that is neglect not the grace of Priest-hood that is in thee by the imposition of hands and this Erasmus helps by making Presbyterii to pertain to Gratiam by a new inter-punction of thâ— words but however Presbyterii with the Latin Fathers signifies Presbyteratus not Presbyterorum and this Presbyteratus is in their sence used for Episcopatus too But the Greek Fathers understand it collectively and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simply such but Bishops too all agree in that that Episcopacy is either meant in office or in person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Oecumenius and S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Theophylact. So Theodoret The probation of this lies upon right reason and Catholick tradition For SECT XXXI To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands 3. THE Bishops ordination was peculiar in this respect above the Presbyters for a Presbyter did never impose hands on a Bishop On a Presbyter they did ever since the fourth Council of Carthage but never on a Bishop And that was the reason of the former exposition By the Presbytery S. Paul means Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters did not impose hands on a Bishop and therefore Presbyterium is not a Colledge of meer Presbyters for such could never ordain S. Timothy to be a Bishop The same reason is given by the Latin Fathers why they expound Presbyterium to signifie Episcopacy For saith S. Ambrose S. Paul had ordained Timothy to be a Bishop Vnde quemadmodum Episcopum ordinet ostendit Neque enim â—as erat aut licebat ut inferior ordinaret Majorem So he and subjoyns this reason Nemon tribuit quod non accepit The same is affirmed by S. Chrysostome and generally by the authors of the former expositions that is the Fathers both of the East and West For it was so General and Catholick a truth that Priests could not might not lay hands on a Bishop that there was never any example of it in Christendome till almost 600. years after Christ and that but once and that irregular and that without imitation of his Successors or example in his Antecessors It was the case of Pope Pelagius the first dum non essent Episcopi qui eum ordinarent inventi sunt duo Episcopi Johannes de Perusio Bonus de Ferentino Andraeas Presbyter de Ostiâ ordinaverunt eum pontificem Tunc enim non erant in Clero qui eum possent promovere Saith Damasus It was in case of necessity because there were not three Bishops therefore he procured two and a priest of Ostia to supply the place of the third that three according to the direction Apostolical and Canons of Nice Antioch and Carthage make Episcopal ordination * The Church of Rome is concerned in the business to make fair this ordination and to reconcile it to the Council of Rhegium and the others before mentioned who if ask'd would declare it to be invalid * But certainly as the Canons did command three to impose hands on a Bishop so also they commanded that those three should be three Bishops and Pelagius might as well not have had three as not three Bishops and better because so they were Bishops the first Canon of the Apostles approves the ordination if done by two 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Nicene Canon is as
Acta in the Scripture therefore by Gods Holy Spirit and the end he also specifies viz. for the honour of that sacred order non propter legis necessitatem not that there is any necessity of law that Confirmation should be administred by the Bishop Not that a Priest may do it but that as S. Hierome himself there argues the Holy Ghost being already given in baptism if it happens that Bishops may not be had for he puts the case concerning persons in bondage and places remote and destitute of Bishops then in that case there is not the absolute necessity of a Law that Confirmation should be had at all A man does not perish if he have it not for that this thing was reserved to a Bishops peculiar ministration was indeed an honour to the function but it was not for the necessity of a Law tying people in all cases actually to acquire it So that this non necessarium is not to be referred to the Bishops ministration as if it were not necessary for him to do it when it is to be done nor that a Priest may do it if a Bishop may not be had but this non-necessity is to be referred to Confirmation it self so that if a Bishop cannot be had Confirmation though with much loss yet with no danger may be omitted This is the summe of S. Hieroms discourse this reconciles him to himself this makes him speak conformably to his first assertions and consequently to his arguments and to be sure no exposition can make these words to intend that this reservation of the power of Confirmation to Bishops is not done by the spirit of God and then let the sence of the words be what they will they can do no hurt to the cause and as easily may we escape from those words of his to Rusticus Bishop of Narbona Sed quia scriptum est Presbyteri duplici honore honorentur praedicare eos decet utile est benedicere congruum confirmare c. It is quoted by Gratian dist 95. can ecce ego But the gloss upon the place expounds him thus i. e. in fide the Presbyters may preach they may confirm their Auditors not by consignation of Chrism but by confirmation of faith and for this quotes a parallel place for the use of the word Confirmare by authority of S. Gregory who sent Zachary his legate into Germany from the See of Rome Vt Orthodoxos Episcopos Presbyteros vel quoscunque reperir◠potuisset in verbo exhortationis perfectos ampliùs confirmaret Certainly S. Gregory did not intend that his legate Zachary should confirm Bishops and Priests in any other sence but this of S. Hierom's in the present to wit in faith and doctrine not in rite and mystery and neither could S. Hierome himself intend that Presbyters should do it at all but in this sence of S. Gregory for else he becomes an Antistrephon and his own opposite * Yea but there is a worse matter than this S. Ambrose tells of the Egyptian Priests that they in the absence of the Bishop do confirm Denique apud Egyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus But 1. The passage is suspicious for it interrupts a discourse of S. Ambrose's concerning the Primitive Order of election to the Bishoprick and is no way pertinent to the discourse but is incircled with a story of a far different consequence which is not easily thought to have been done by any considering and intelligent Author 2. But suppose the clause be not surreptitious but natural to the discourse and born with it yet it is matter of fact not of right for S. Ambrose neither approves nor disproves it and so it must go for a singular act against the Catholick practice and Laws of Christendom 3. If the whole clause be not surreptitious yet the word Consignant is for S. Austin who hath the same discourse the same thing viz. of the dignity of Presbyters tells this story of the Act and honour of Presbyters in Alexandria and all Egppt almost in the other words of his Master S. Ambrose but he tells it thus Nam in Alexandriâ per totum Egyptum si desit Episcopus Consecrat Presbyter So that it should not be consignat but consecrat for no story tells of any confirmations done in Egypt by Presbyters but of consecrating the Eucharist in cases of Episcopal absence or commission I shall give account in the Question of jurisdiction that that was indeed permitted in Egypt some other places but Confirmation never that we can find elsewhere and this is too improbable to bear weight against evidence and practice Apostolical and four Councils and sixteen ancient Catholick Fathers testifying that it was a practice and a Law of Christendom that Bishops only should confirm and not Priests so that if there be no other scruple this Question is quickly at an end ** But S. Gregory is also pretended in objection for he gave dispensation to the Priests of Sardinia ut baptizatos Vnguant to aneal baptized people Now anointing the forehead of the baptized person was one of the solemnities of Confirmation so that this indulgence does arise to a power of Confirming for Vnctio and Chrismatio in the first Arausican Council and since that time Sacramentum Chrismatis hath been the usual word for Confirmation But this will not much trouble the business Because it is evident that he means it not of Confirmation but of the Chrisme in those times by the rites of the Church us'd in baptism For in his ninth Epistle he forbids Priests to anoint baptized people now here is precept against precept therefore it must be understood of several anointings and so S. Gregory expounds himself in this ninth Epistle Presbyteri baptizatos infantes signare bis infronte Chrismate non praesumant Presbyters may not anoint baptized people twice once they might now that this permission of anointing was that which was a ceremony of baptism not an act of confirmation we shall see by comparing it with other Canons In the collection of the Oriental Canons by Martinus Bracarensis It is decreed thus Presbyter praesente Episcopo non Signet infantes nisi forte ab Episcopo fuerit illi praeceptum A Priest must not sign infants without leave of the Bishop if he be present Must not sign them that is with Chrisme in their foreheads and that in baptism for the circumstant Canons do expresly explicate and determine it for they are concerning the rites of baptism and this in the midst of them And by the way this may answer S. Ambrose his Presbyteri consignant absente Episcopo in case it be so to be read for here we see a consignation permitted to the Presbyters in the Eastern Churches to be used in baptism in the absence of the Bishop and this an act of indulgence and favour and therefore extraordinary and of use to S. Ambrose his purpose of advancing the Presbyters
Synodum quòd quidam qui in Clero sunt allecti Propter Lucra Turpia conductores alienarum possessionum fiant saecularia negotia sub curâ suâ suscipiant Dei quidem Ministerium parvipendentes Saecularium verò discurrentes domos Propter Avaritiam patrimoniorum sollicitudinem sumentes Clergy-men were farmers of lands and did take upon them secular imployment for covetous designs and with neglect of the Church These are the things the Councel complain'd of and therefore according to this exigence the following Sanction is to be understood Decrevit itaque hoc Sanctum magnumque Concilium nullum deinceps non Episcopum non Clericum vel Monachum aut possessiones conducere aut negotiis secularibus se immiscere No Bishop no Clergy-man no Monk must farm grounds nor ingage himself in secular business What in none No none Praeter pupillorum si forte leges imponant inexcusabilem curam aut civitatis Episcopus Ecclesiasticarum rerum sollicitudinem habere praecipiat aut Orphanorum viduarum carum quae sine ullâ defensione sunt ac personarum quae maximè Ecclesiastico indigent adjutorio propter timorem Domini causa deposcat This Canon will do right to the Question All secular affairs and bargains either for covetousness or with considerable disturbance of Church-Offices are to be avoided For a Clergy man must not be covetous much less for covetise must he neglect his cure To this purpose is that of the second Councel of Arles Clericus turpis lucri gratiâ aliquod genus negotiationis non exerceat But not here nor at Chalcedon is the prohibition absolute nor declaratory of an inconsistence and incapacity for for all this the Bishop or Clerk may do any office that is in piâ curiâ He may undertake the supra-vision of Widows and Orphans And although he be forbid by the Canon of the Apostles to be a Guardian of Pupils yet it is expounded here by this Canon of Chalcedon for a voluntary seeking it is forbidden by the Apostles but here it is permitted only with si fortè leges imponant if the Law or Authority commands him then he may undertake it That is if either the Emperor commands him or if the Bishop permits him then it is lawful But without such command or licence it was against the Canon of the Apostles And therefore Saint Cyprian did himself severely punish Geminius Faustinus one of the Priests of Carthage for undertaking the executorship of the Testament of Geminius Victor he had no leave of his Bishop so to do and for him of his own head to undertake that which would be an avocation of him from his Office did in Saint Cyprian's Consistory deserve a censure 3. By this Canon of Chalcedon any Clerk may be the Oeconomus or Steward of a Church and dispence her Revenue if the Bishop command him 4. He may undertake the patronage or assistance of any distressed person that needs the Churches aid * From hence it is evident that all secular imployment did not hoc ipso avocate a Clergy-man from his necessary office and duty for some secular imployments are permitted him All causes of piety of charity all occurrences concerning the Revenues of the Church and nothing for covetousness but any thing in obedience any thing I mean of the forenamed instances Nay the affairs of Church Revenues and dispensation of Ecclesiastical Patrimony was imposed on the Bishop by the Canons Apostolical and then considering how many possessions were deposited first at the Apostles feet and afterwards in the Bishops hands we may quickly perceive that a case may occur in which something else may be done by the Bishop and his Clergy besides prayer and preaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Ignatius to Saint Polycarpe of Smyrna Let not the Widows be neglected after God do thou take care of them Qui locupletes sunt volunt pro arbitrio quisque suo quod libitum est contribuit quod collectum est apud Praesidem deponitur atque is inde opitulatur Orphanis viduis iisque qui vel morbo vel aliâ de causà egent tum iis qui vincti sunt peregrè advenientibus hospitibus ut uno verbo dicam omnium indigentium Curator est All the Collects and Offerings of faithful people are deposited with the Bishop and thence he dispenses for the relief of the Widows and Orphans thence he provides for travellers and in one word he takes care of all indigent and necessitous people So it was in Justin Martyr's time and all this a man would think requir'd a considerable portion of his time besides his studies and prayer and preaching This was also done even in the Apostles times for first they had the provision of all the goods and persons of the coenobium of the Church at Jerusalem This they themselves administred till a complaint arose which might have prov'd a scandal then they chose seven men men full of the Holy Ghost men that were Priests for they were of the seventy Disciples saith Epiphanius and such men as Preached and Baptized so Saint Stephen and Saint Philip therefore to be sure they were Clergy-men and yet they left their preaching for a time at least abated of the height of the imployment for therefore the Apostles appointed them that themselves might not leave the Word of God and serve Tables plainly implying that such men who were to serve these Tables must leave the Ministery of the Word in some sence or degree and yet they chose Presbyters and no harm neither and for a while themselves had the imployment I say there was no harm done by this temporary Office to their Priestly function and imployment For to me it is considerable If the calling of a Presbyter does not take up the whole man then what inconvenience though his imployment be mixt with secular allay But if it does take up the whole man then it is not safe for any Presbyter ever to become a Bishop which is a dignity of a far greater burden and requires more than a Man 's all if all was requir'd to the function of a Presbyter But I proceed 4. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Bishops and Clerks do prohibit it only in gradu impedimenti officii Clericalis and therefore when the Offices are supplyed by any of the Order it is never prohibited but that the personal abilities of any man may be imployed for the fairest advantages either of Church or Commonwealth And therefore it is observable that the Canons provide that the Church be not destitute not that such a particular Clerk should there officiate Thus the Councel of Arles decreed Vt Presbyteri sicut hactenus factum est indiscretè per diversa non mittantur loca ne fortè propter eorum absentiam animarum pericula Ecclesiarum in quibus constituti sunt negligantur officia So that here we see 1. That it had been usual to send Priests
and yet a Godly Bishop and Saint Austin his Presbyter preached for him The same case might occur in the Apostles times For then was a concurse of all Nations to the Christian Synaxes especially in all great Imperial Cities and Metropolitans as Rome Antioch Jerusalem Caesarea and the like Now all could not speak with tongues neither could all Prophesie they were particular gifts given severally to several men appointed to minister in Church-offices Some prophesied some interpreted and therefore it is an ignorant fancy to think that he must needs be a Laick whosoever in the ages Apostolical was not a Preacher 2. None of the Fathers ever expounded this place of Lay-Elders so that we have a traditive interpretation of it in prejudice to the pretence of our new Office 3. The word Presbyter is never used in the New-Testament for a Lay-man if a Church-officer be intended If it be said it is used so here that is the Question and must not be brought to prove it self 4. The Presbyter that is here spoken of must be maintained by Ecclesiastical Revenue for so Saint Paul expounds honour in the next verse Presbyters that rule well must be honoured c. For it is written thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the corn But now the Patrons of this new devise are not so greedy of their Lay-Bishops as to be at charges with them they will rather let them stand alone on their own rotten legs and so perish than fix him upon this place with their hands in their purses But it had been most fitting for them to have kept him being he is of their own begetting 5. This place speaks not of divers persons but divers parts of the Pastoral office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To rule and to labour in the Word Just as if the expression had been in materiâ politicâ All good Councellors of State are worthy of double honour especially them that disregarding their own private aim at the publick good This implies not two sorts of Counsellors but two parts of a Counsellors worth and quality Judges that do righteousness are worthy of double honour especially if they right the cause of Orphans and Widows and yet there are no righteous Judges that refuse to do both 6. All Ministers of H. Church did not preach at least not frequently The seven that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over the Widows were Presbyters but yet they were forced to leave the constant ministration of the Word to attend that imployment as I shewed formerly and thus it was in descent too for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Socrates A Presbyter does not Preach in Alexandria the Bishop only did it And then the allegation is easily understood For labouring in the word does not signifie only making Homilies or Exhortations to the people but whether it be by word or writing or travelling from place to place still the greater the sedulity of the person is and difficulty of the labour the greater increment of honour is to be given him So that here is no Lay-Elders for all the Presbyters S. Paul speaks of are to be honoured but especially those who take extraordinary pains in propagating the Gospel For though all preach suppose that yet all do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take such great pains in it as is intimated in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to take bodily labour and travel usque ad lassitudinem so Budaeus renders it And so it is likely S. Paul here means Honour the good Presbyters but especially them that travel for disseminating the Gospel And the word is often so used in Scripture S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have travelled in the word more than they all Not that S. Paul preached more than all the Apostles for most certainly they made it their business as well as he But he travelled further and more than they all for the spreading it And thus it is said of the good Women that travelled with the Apostles for supply of the necessities of their diet and houshold offices they laboured much in the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word for them too So it is said of Persis of Mary of Tryphaena of Tryphosa And since those Women were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that travelled with the Apostolical men and Evangelists the men also travelled too and preached and therefore were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is travellers in the word We ought therefore to receive such saith S. John intimating a particular reception of them as being towards us of a peculiar merit So that the sence of S. Paul may be this also All the Rulers of the Church that is all Bishops Apostles and Apostolick men are to be honoured but especially them who besides the former ruling are also travellers in the word or Evangelists 7. We are furnished with answer enough to infatuate this pretence for Lay-Elders from the common draught of the new discipline For they have some that Preach only and some that Rule and Preach too and yet neither of them the Lay-Elder viz. their Pastors and Doctors 8. Since it is pretended by themselves in the Question of Episcopacy that Presbyter and Episcopus is all one and this very thing confidently obtruded in defiance of Episcopacy why may not Presbyteri in this place signifie Bishops And then either this must be Lay-Bishops as well as Lay-Presbyters or else this place is to none of their purposes 9. If both these Offices of Ruling and Preaching may be conjunct in one person then there is no necessity of distinguishing the Officers by the several imployments since one man may do both But if these Offices cannot be conjunct then no Bishops must preach nor no Preachers be of the Consistory take which government you list for if they be then the Officer being united in one person the inference of the dististinct Officer the Lay-Elder is impertinent For the meaning of Saint Paul would be nothing but this All Church-Rulers must be honoured especially for their preaching For if the Offices may be united in one person as it is evident they may then this may be comprehended within the other and only be a vital part and of peculiar excellency And indeed so it is according to the Exposition of Saint Chrysostom and Primasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They rule well that spare nothing for the care of the Flock So that this is the general charge and preaching is the particular For the work in general they are to receive double honour but this of preaching as then preaching was had a particular excellency and a plastick power to form men into Christianity especially it being then attested with miracles But the new Office of a Lay-Elder I confess I cannot comprehend in any reasonable proportion his person his quality his office his authority his subordination his commission hath made so many divisions and
and the material part is opposed to it as less true or real The examples of this are not infrequent in Scripture The Tabernacle into which the high Priest entred was a type or a figure of Heaven Heaven it self is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the true Tabernacle and yet the other was the material part And when they are joyned together that is when a thing is expressed by a figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 True is spoken of such things though they are spoken figuratively Christ the true light that lighteneth every man that cometh into the world He is also the true vine and verè cibus truly or really meat and Panis verus è coelo the true bread from Heaven and spiritual goods are called the true riches and in the same Analogy the spiritual presence of Christ is the most true real and effective the other can be but the image and shadow of it something in order to this for if it were in the Sacrament naturally or corporeally it could be but in order to this spiritual celestial and effective presence as appears beyond exception in this that the faithful and pious communicants receive the ultimate end of his presence that is spiritual blessings The wicked who by the affirmation of the Roman Doctors do receive Christs body and blood in the natural and corporal manner fall short of that for which this is given that is of the blessings and benefits 7. So that as S. Paul said He is not a Jew who is one outwardly neither is that circumcision which is outwardly in the flesh But he is a Jew which is one inwardly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's the real Jew and the true circumcision that which is of the heart and in the spirit and in this sence it is that Nathaniel is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really and truly an Israelite so we may say of the blessed Sacrament Christ is more truly and really present in spiritual presence than in corporal in the Heavenly effect than in the natural being this if it were at all can be but the less perfect and therefore we are to the most real purposes and in the proper sence of Scripture the more real defenders of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament for the spiritual sence is the most real and most true and most agreeable to the Analogy and style of Scripture and right reason and common manner of speaking For every degree of excellency is a degree of being of reality and truth and therefore spiritual things being more excellent than corporal and natural have the advantage both in truth and reality And this is fully the sence of the Christians who use the Aegyptian Liturgy Sanctifica nos Domine noster sicut sanctificasti has oblationes propositas sed fecisti illas non fictas that 's for real quicquid apparet est mysterium tuum spiritale that 's for spiritual To all which I add the testimony of Bellarmine concerning S. Austin Apud Augustinum saepissimè illud solum dici tale verè tale quod habet effectum suum conjunctum res enim ex fructu aestimatur itaque illos dicit verè comedere corpus Christi qui utiliter comedunt They only truly eat Christs body that eat it with effect for then a thing is really or truly such when it is not to no purpose when it hath his effect And in his eleventh Book against Faustus the Manichee Chap. 7. he shews that in Scripture the words are often so taken as to signifie not the substance but the quality and effect of a thing So when it is said Flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God that is corruption shall not inherit and in the resurrection our bodies are said to be spiritual that is not in substance but in effect and operation and in the same manner he often speaks concerning the blessed Sacrament and Clemens Romanus affirms expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is to drink the blood of Jesus to partake of the Lords immortality 8. This may suffice for the word real which the English Papists much use but as appears with less reason than the Sons of the Church of England and when the real presence is denied the word real is taken for Natural and does not signifie transcendenter or in his just and most proper signification But the word substantialiter is also used by Protestants in this question which I suppose may be the same with that which is in the Article of Trent Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator substantiâ suâ nobis adest In substance but after a sacramental manner which words if they might be understood in the sence in which the Protestants use them that is really truly without fiction or the help of fancy but in rei veritate so as Philo calls spiritual things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most necessary useful and material substances it might become an instrument of an united confession And this is the manner of speaking which S. Bernard used in his Sermon of S. Martin where he affirms In Sacramento exhiberi nobis veram carnis substantiam sed spiritualiter non carnaliter In the Sacrament is given us the true substance of Christs body or flesh but not carnally but spiritually that is not to our mouths but to our hearts not to be chewed by teeth but to be eaten by faith But they mean it otherwise as I shall demonstrate by and by In the mean time it is remarkable that Bellarmine when he is stating this question seems to say the same thing for which he quotes the words of S. Bernard now mentioned for he says that Christs body is there truly substantially really but not corporally Nay you may say spiritually and now a man would think we had him sure but his nature is labile and slippery you are never the nearer for this for first he says it is not safe to use the word spiritually nor yet safe to say he is not there corporally lest it be understood not of the manner of his presence but to the exclusion of the nature For he intends not for all these fine words that Christs body is present spiritually as the word is used in Scripture and in all common notices of usual speaking but spiritually with him signifies after the manner of spirits which besides that it is a cousening the world in the manner of expression is also a direct folly and contradiction that a body should be substantially present that is with the nature of a body naturally and yet be not as a body but as a spirit with that manner of being with which a spirit is distinguished from a body In vain therefore it is that he denies the carnal manner and admits a spiritual and ever after requires that we believe a carnal presence even in the very manner But this caution and exactness in the use of the
word spiritual is therefore carefully to be observed lest the contention of both parties should seem trifling and to be for nothing We say that Christs body is in the Sacrament really but spiritually They say it is there really but spiritually For so Bellarmine is bold to say that the word may be allowed in this question Where now is the difference Here by spiritually they mean present after the manner of a Spirit by spiritually we mean present to our Spirits only that is so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that of Faith or spiritual susception but their way makes his body to be present no way but that which is impossibe and implies a contradiction a body not after the manner of a body a body like a spirit a body without a body and a sacrifice of body and blood without blood corpus incorporeum cruor incruentus They say that Christs body is truly present there as it was upon the Cross but not after the manner of all or any body but after that manner of being as an Angel is in a place That 's there spiritually But we by the real spiritual presence of Christ do understand Christ to be present as the Spirit of God is present in the hearts of the Faithful by blessing and grace and this is all which we mean besides the tropical and figurative presence 9. That which seems of hardest explication is the word corporaliter which I find that Melanchthon used saying corporaliter quoque communicatione carnis Christi Christum in nobis habitare which manner of speaking I have heard he avoided after he had conversed with Oecolampadius who was able then to teach him and most men in that question but the expression may become warrantable and consonant to our doctrine and means no more than really and without fiction or beyond a figure like that of S. Paul in Christ dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily upon which S. Austin says In ipso inhabitat plenitudo Divinitatis corporaliter quia in Templo habitaverat umbraliter and in S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are opposed which are a shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ that is the substance the reality the correlative of the type and figure the thing signified and among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies solidare to make firm real and consistent but among the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or body signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every thing that is produced from nothing saith Phavorinus that is every thing that is real extra non ens that hath a proper being so that we receiving Christ in the Sacrament corporally or bodily understand that we do it really by the ministery of our bodies receiving him unto our souls And thus we affirm Christs body to be present in the Sacrament not only in type or figure but in blessing and real effect that is more than in the types of the Law the shadows were of the Law but the body is of Christ. And besides this the word corporally may be very well used when by it is only understood a corporal sign So S. Cyril of Jerusalem in his third Catechism says that the holy Ghost did descend corporally in the likeness of a Dove that is in a type or representment of a Doves body for so he and many of the Ancients did suppose and so he again uses the word Jesus Christ as a man did inspire the holy Spirit corporally into his Apostles where by corporally it is plain he means by a corporal or material sign or symbol viz. by breathing upon them and saying receive ye the holy Ghost In either of these sences if the word be taken it may indifferently be used in this question 10. I have been the more careful to explain the question and the use of these words according to our meaning in the question for these two reasons 1. Because until we are agreed upon the signification of the words they are equivocal and by being used on both sides to several purposes sometime are pretended as instruments of union but indeed effect it not but sometimes displease both parties while each supects the word in a wrong sence And this hath with very ill effect been observed in the conferences for composing the difference in this question particularly that of Poissy where it was propounded in these words Credimus in usu coenae Dominicae verè reipsâ substantialiter sen in substantiâ verum corpus sanguinem Christi spirituali ineffabili modo esse exhiberi sumi à fidelibus communicantibus Beza and Gallasius for the Reformed and Espencaeus and Monlucius for the Romanists undertook to propound it to their parties But both rejected it for though the words were not disliked yet they suspected each others sence But now that I have declared what is meant by us in these words they are made useful in the explicating the question 2. But because the words do perfectly declare our sence and are owned publickly in our doctrine and manner of speaking it will be in vain to object against us those sayings of the Fathers which use the same expressions for if by vertue of those words really substantially corporally verily and indeed and Christs body and blood the Fathers shall be supposed to speak for transubstantiation they may as well suppose it to be our doctrine too for we use the same words and therefore those authorities must signifie nothing against us unless these words can be proved in them to signifie more than our sence of them does import and by this truth many very many of their pretences are evacuated 11. One thing more I am to note in order to the same purposes that in the explication of this question it is much insisted upon that it be inquired whether when we say we believe Christs body to be really in the Sacrament we mean that body that flesh that was born of the Virgin Mary that was crucified dead and buried I answer I know none else that he had or hath there is but one body of Christ natural and glorified but he that says that body is glorified which was crucified says it is the same body but not after the same manner and so it is in the Sacrament we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ that was broken and powred forth for there is no other body no other blood of Christ but though it is the same which we eat and drink yet it is in another manner And therefore when any of the Protestant Divines or any of the Fathers deny that body which was born of the Virgin Mary that which was crucified to be eaten in the Sacrament as Bertram as S. Hierome as Clemens Alexandrinus expresly affirm the meaning is easie they intend that it is not eaten in a natural sence and then calling it corpus spirituale the word spiritual is not a substantial predication
but is an affirmation of the manner though in disputation it be made the predicate of a proposition and the opposite member of a distinction That body which was crucified is not that body that is eaten in the Sacrament if the intention of the proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being but that body which was crucified the same body we do eat if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several manners of being and operating and this I noted that we may not be prejudiced by words when the notion is certain and easie And thus far is the sence of our doctrine in this Article 12. On the other side the Church of Rome uses the same words we do but wholly to other purposes affirming 1. That after the words of consecration on the Altar there is no bread in the Chalice there is no wine 2. That the accidents that is the colour the shape the bigness the weight the smell the nourishing qualities of bread and wine do remain but neither in the bread nor in the body of Christ but by themselves that is so that there is whiteness and nothing white sweetness and nothing sweet c. 3. That in the place of the substance of bread and wine there is brought the natural body of Christ and his blood that was shed upon the Cross. 4. That the flesh of Christ is eaten by every Communicant good and bad worthy and unworthy 5. That this is conveniently properly and most aptly called Transubstantiation that is a conversion of the whole substance of bread into the substance of Christs natural body of the whole substance of the wine into his blood In the process of which doctrine they oppose spiritualiter to sacramentaliter and realiter supposing the spiritual manducation though done in the Sacrament by a worthy receiver not to be sacramental and real 13. So that now the question is not Whether the symbols be changed into Christs body and blood or no For it is granted on all sides but whether this conversion be Sacramental and figurative or whether it be natural and bodily Nor is it whether Christ be really taken but whether he be taken in a spiritual or in a natural manner We say the conversion is figurative mysterious and Sacramental they say it is proper natural and corporal we affirm that Christ is really taken by Faith by the Spirit to all real effects of his passion they say he is taken by the mouth and that the spiritual and the virtual taking him in virtue or effect is not sufficient though done also in the Sacrament Hic Rhodus his saltus This thing I will try by Scripture by Reason by Sense and by Tradition SECT II. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture 1. THE Scriptures pretended for it are S. John 6. and the words of institution recorded by three Evangelists and S. Paul Concerning which I shall first lay this prejudice that by the confession of the Romanists themselves men learned and famous in their generations nor these places nor any else in Scripture are sufficient to prove Transubstantiation Cardinal Cajetan affirms that there is in Scripture nothing of force or necessity to infer Transubstantiation out of the words of institution and that the words seclusâ Ecclesiae authoritate setting aside the decree of the Church are not sufficient This is reported by Suarez but he says that the words of Cajetan by the command of Pius V. were left out of the Roman Edition and he adds that Cajetanus solus ex catholicis hoc docuit He only of their side taught it which is carelesly affirmed by the Jesuite for another Cardinal Bishop of Rochester John Fisher affirmed the same thing for speaking of the words of institution recorded by S. Matthew he says Neque ullum hîc verbum positum est quo probetur in nostrâ missâ veram fieri carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam There are no words set down here viz. in the words of institution by which it may be proved that in our Mass there is a true presence of the flesh and blood of Christ. To this I add a third Cardinal Bishop of Cambray de Aliaco who though he likes the opinion because it was then more common that the substance of bread does not remain after consecration yet ea non sequitur evidenter ex Scripturis it does not follow evidently from Scripture 2. To these three Cardinals I add the concurrent testimony of two famous Schoolmen Johannes Duns Scotus who for his rare wit and learning became a Father of a Scholastical faction in the Schools of Rome affirms Non extare locum ullum Scripturae tam expressum ut sine Ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat Transubstantiationem admittere There is no place of Scripture so express that without the declaration of the Church it can evidently compel us to admit Transubstantiation And Bellarmine himself says that it is not altogether improbable since it is affirmed à doctissimis acutissimis hominibus by most learned and most acute men The Bishop of Eureux who was afterwards Cardinal Richelieu not being well pleased with Scotus in this question said that Scotus had only considered the testimonies of the Fathers cited by Gratian Peter Lombard Aquinas and the Schoolmen before him Suppose that But these testimonies are not few and the witty man was as able to understand their opinion by their words as any man since and therefore we have the in-come of so many Fathers as are cited by the Canon-Law the Master of the sentences and his Scholars to be partly a warrant and none of them to contradict the opinion of Scotus who neither believed it to be taught evidently in Scripture nor by the Fathers 3. The other Schoolman I am to reckon in this account is Gabriel Biel. Quomodo ibi sit corpus Christi an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantiâ accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canone Bibliae How the body of Christ is there whether by conversion of any thing into it or without conversion it begin to be the body of Christ with the bread the accidents and the substance of the bread still remaining is not found expressed in the Canon of the Bible Hitherto I could add the concurrent Testimony of Ocham in 4. q. 6. of Johonnes de Bassolis who is called Doctor Ordinatissimus but that so much to the same purpose is needless and the thing is confessed to be the opinion of many writers of their own party as appears in Salmeron And Melchior Canus Bishop of the Canaries amongst the things not expressed in Scripture reckons the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. 4. If it be said that the Churches determination is a better interpreter of Scripture than they it
sufficient in this excuse For if eating Christ by faith be a thing of all times then it is also of the future and no difference of time is so apt to express an Eternal truth as is the future which is alwayes in flux and potential signification But the secret of the thing was this the Arguments against the sacramental sence of these words drawn from the following verses between this and the 51. verse could not so well be answered and therefore Bellarmine found out the trick of confessing all till you come thither as appears in his Answer to the ninth Argument that of some Catholicks However as to the Article I am to say these things 1. That very many of the most learned Romanists affirm that in this Chapter Christ does not speak of sacramental or oral manducation or of the Sacrament at all Johannes de Ragusio Biel Cusanus Ruard Tapper Cajetan Hessels Jansenius Waldensis Armachanus save only that Bellarmine going to excuse it sayes in effect that they did not do it very honestly for he affirms that they did it that they might confute the Hussites and the Lutherans about the Communion under both kinds and if it be so and not be so as it may serve a turn It is so for Transubstantiation and it is not so for the half Communion we have but little reason to rely upon their judgment or candor in any exposition of Scripture But it is no new thing for some sort of men to do so The Heretick Severus in Anastasius Sinaita maintained it lawful and even necessary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to occasions and emergent heresies to alter and change the Doctrines of Christ and the Cardinal of Cusa affirmed it lawful diversly to expound the Scriptures according to the times So that we know what precedents and authorities they can urge for so doing and I doubt not but it is practised too often since it was offered to be justified by Dureus against Whitaker 2. These great Clerks had reason to expound it not to be meant of sacramental manducation to avoid the unanswerable Argument against their half Communion for so Christ said Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you It is therefore as necessary to drink the Chalice as to eat the Bread and we perish if we omit either And their new whimsie of Concomitancy will not serve the turn because there it is sanguis effusus that is sacramentally powred forth blood that is powred forth not that is in the body 2. If it were in the body yet a man by no concomitancy can be said to drink what he only eats 3. If in the Sacramental body Christ gave the blood by concomitancy then he gave the blood twice which to what purpose it might be done is not yet revealed 4. If the blood be by concomitancy in the body then so is the body with the blood and then it will be sufficient to drink the Chalice without the Host as to eat the Host without the Chalice and then we must drink his Flesh as well as eat his Blood which if we could suppose to be possible yet the precept of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood were not observed by drinking that which is to be eaten and eating that which is to be drunk But certainly they are fine Propositions which cannot be true unless we can eat our drink and drink our meat unless bread be wine and wine be bread or to speak in their stile unless the body be the blood and the blood the body that is unless each of the two Symboles be the other as much as it self as much that which it is not as that which it is And this thing their own Pope Innocentius the third and from him Vasquez noted and Salmeron who affirmed that Christ commanded the manner as well as the thing and that without eating and drinking the precept of Christ is not obeyed 3. But whatever can come of this yet upon the account of these words so expounded by some of the Fathers concerning oral manducation and potation they believed themselves bound by the same necessity to give the Eucharist to Infants as to give them Baptism and did for above seven Ages together practise it And let these men that will have these words spoken of the Eucharist answer the Argument Bellarmine is troubled with it and instead of answering increases the difficulty and concludes firmly against himself saying If the words be understood of eating Christ's body spiritually or by faith it will be more impossible to Infants for it is easier to give them intinctum panem bread dipt in the Chalice than to make them believe To this I reply that therefore it is spoken to Infants in neither sence neither is any law at all given to them and no laws can be understood as obligatory to them in that capacity But then although I have answered the Argument because I believe it not to be meant in the Sacramental sence to any nor in the Spiritual sence to them yet Bellarmine hath not answered the pressure that lies upon his cause For since it is certain and he confesses it that it is easier that is it is possible to give Infants the Sacrament it follows that if here the Sacrament be meant Infants are obliged that is the Church is obliged to minister it as well as Baptism there being in vertue of these words the same necessity and in the nature of the thing the same possibility of their receiving it But then on the other side no inconvenience can press our interpretation of spiritual eating Christ by faith because it being naturally impossible that Infants should believe they cannot be concerned in an impossible Commandment So that we can answer Saint Austin's and Innocentius his Arguments for communicating of Infants but they cannot 4. If these words be understood of Sacramental manducation then no man can be saved but he that receives the holy Sacrament For unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye have no life in you if it be answered that the holy Sacrament must be eaten in act or in desire I reply that is not true because if a Catechumen desires Baptism only in the Article of his death it is sufficient to salvation and they dare not deny it 2. Fools young persons they that are surprised with sudden death cannot be thought to perish for want of the actual susception or desire 3. There is nothing in the words that can warrant or excuse the actual omission of the Sacrament and it is a strange deception that these men suffer by misunderstanding this distinction of receiving the Sacrament either in act or desire For they are not opposite but subordinate members differ only as act and disposition and this disposition is not at all required but as it
is in order to the act and therefore is nothing of it self and is only the imperfection of or passage to the act if therefore the act were not necessary neither were the disposition but if the act be necessary then the desire which is but the disposition to the act is not sufficient As if it be necessary to go from Oxford to London then it is necessary that you go to Henly or Vxbridge but if it be necessary to be at London it is not sufficient to go to Vxbridge but if it be not necessary to be at London neither is it necessary to go so far But this distinction as it is commonly used is made to serve ends and is grown to that inconvenience that repentance it self is said to be sufficient if it be only in desire for so they must that affirm repentance in the Article of death after a wicked life to be sufficient when it is certain there can be nothing actual but infective desires and all the real and most material events of it cannot be performed but desired only But whosoever can be excused from the actual susception of a Sacrament can also in an equal necessity be excused from the desire and no man can be tied to an absolute irrespective desire of that which cannot be had and if it can the desire alone will not serve the turn And indeed a desire of a thing when we know it cannot be had is a temptation either to impatience or a scruple and why or how can a man be obliged to desire that to be done which in all his circumstances is not necessary it should be done A preparation of mind to obey in those circumstances in which it is possible that is in which he is obliged is the duty of every man but this is not an explicite desire of the actual susception which in his case is not obligatory because it is impossible And lastly such a desire of a thing is wholly needless because in the present case the thing it self is not necessary therefore neither is the desire neither did God ever require it but in order to the act But however if we find by discourse that for all these decretory words the desire can suffice I demand by what instrument is that accepted whether by faith or no I suppose it will not be denied But if it be not denied then a spiritual manducation can perform the duty of those words for susception of the Sacrament in desire is at the most but a spiritual manducation And S. Austin affirms that Baptism can perform the duty of those words if Beda quotes him right for in his Sermon to Infants and in his third book de peccatorum meritis remissione he affirms that in Baptism Infants receive the Body of Christ So that these words may as well be understood of Baptism as of the Eucharist and of Faith better than either 5. The men of Capernaum understood Christ to speak these words of his natural flesh and blood and were scandalized at it and Christ reproved their folly by telling them his words were to be understood in a spiritual sence So that if men would believe him that knew best the sence of his own words there need be no scruple of the sence I do not understand these words in a fleshly sence but in a spiritual saith Christ The flesh profiteth nothing the words that I have spoken they are spirit and they are life Now besides that the natural sence of the words hath in it too much of the sence of the offended Disciples the reproof and consultation of it is equally against the Romanists as against the Capernaites For we contend it is spiritual so Christ affirmed it they that deny the Spiritual sence and affirm the Natural are to remember that Christ reproved all sences of these words that were not spiritual And by the way let me observe that the expression of some chief men among the Romanists are so rude and crass that it will be impossible to excuse them from the understanding the words in the sence of the men of Capernaum for as they understood Christ to mean his true flesh natural and proper so do they as they thought Christ intended they should tear him with their teeth and suck his blood for which they were offended so do these men not only think so but say so and are not offended So said Alanus Apertissimè loquimur corpus Christi verè à nobis contrectari manducari circumgestari dentibus teri sensibiliter sacrificari non minùs quà m ante consecrationem panis And they frequently quote those Metaphors of S. Chrysostom which he preaches in the height of his Rhetorick as testimonies of his opinion in the doctrinal part and Berengarius was forced by Pope Nicholas to recant in those very words affirming that Christâ—s body sensualiter non solùm Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri that Christ's flesh was sensually not only in the Sacrament but in truth of the thing to be handled by the Priests hands to be broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful Insomuch that the gloss on the Canon de Consecratione dist 2. cap. Ego Berengarius affirms it to be a worse heresie than that of Berengarius unless it be so soberly understood to which also Cassander assents and indeed I thought that the Romanists had been glad to separate their own opinion from the carnal conceit of the men of Capernaum and the offended Disciples supposing it to be a great Objection against their Doctrine that it was the same with the men of Capernaum and is only finer dressed But I find that Bellarmine owns it even in them in their rude circumstances for he affirms that Christ corrected them not for supposing so but reproved them for not believing it to be so And indeed himself sayes as much Corpus Christi verè ac propriè manducari etiam corpore in Eucharistiâ the body of Christ is truly and properly manducated or chewed with the body in the Eucharist and to take off the foulness of the expression by avoiding a worse he is pleased to speak nonsence Nam ad rationem manducationis non est mera attritio sed satis est sumptio transmissio ab ore ad stomachum per instrumena humana A thing may be manducated or chewed though it be not attrite or broken If he had said it might be swallowed and not chewed he had said true but to say it may be chewed without chewing or breaking is a Riddle fit to spring from the miraculous doctrine of Transubstantiation and indeed it is a pretty device that we take the flesh and swallow down flesh and yet manducate or chew no flesh and yet we swallow down only what we manducate Accipite manducate were the words in the institution And indeed according to this device there were no difference between eating and drinking and
meaning nothing to the giving of life So that here we have besides his authority an excellent Argument for us Christ said he that eateth my flesh hath life but the flesh that is the fleshly sence of it profits nothing to life but the Spirit that is the spiritual sence does therefore these words are to be understood in a spiritual sence 9. And because it is here opportune by occasion of this discourse let me observe this that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is infinitely useless and to no purpose For by the words of our Blessed Lord by the Doctrine of Saint Paul and the sence of the Church and the confession of all sides the natural eating of Christ's flesh if it were there or could so be eaten alone or of it self does no good does not give life but the spiritual eating of him is the instrument of life to us and this may be done without their Transubstantiated flesh it may be done in Baptisme by Faith and Charity by Hearing and understanding and therefore it may also in the blessed Eucharist although there also according to our Doctrine he be eaten only Sacramentally and Spiritually And hence it is that in the Mass-book anciently it is prayed after consecration Quaesumus Omnipotens Deus ut de perceptis muneribus gratias exhibentes beneficia potiora sumamus We beseech thee Almighty God that we giving thanks for these gifts received may receive greater gifts which besides that it concludes against the Natural Presence of Christ's body for what greater thing can we receive if we receive that it also declares that the grace and effect of the Sacramental communion is the thing designed beyond all corporal sumption and as it is more fully express'd in another Collect Vt terrenis affectibus expiati ad superni plenitudinem Sacramenti cujus libavimus sancta tendamus that being redeemed from all earthly affections we may tend to the fulness of the Heavenly Sacrament the Holy things of which we have now begun to taste And therefore to multiply so many miracles and contradictions and impossibilities to no purpose is an insuperable prejudice against any pretence less than a plain declaration from God Add to this that this bodily presence of Christ's body is either for corporal nourishment or for spiritual Not for Corporal for Natural food is more proper for it and to work a Miracle to do that for which so many Natural means are already appointed is to no purpose and therefore cannot be supposed to be done by God neither is it done for spiritual nourishment because to the spiritual nourishment vertues and graces the word and the efficacious signs faith and the inward actions and all the emanations of the Spirit are as proportion'd as meat and drink are to natural nourishment and therefore there can be no need of a Corporal Presence 2. Corporal manducation of Christ's body is apparently inconsistent with the nature and condition of a body 1. Because that which is after the manner of a spirit and not of a body cannot be eaten and drunk after the manner of a body but of a spirit as no man can eat a Cherubin with his mouth if he were made apt to nourish the soul but by the confession of the Roman Doctors Christ's body is present in the Eucharist after the manner of a spirit therefore without proportions to our body or bodily actions 2. That which neither can feel or be felt see or be seen move or be mov'd change or be changed neither do or suffer corporally cannot certainly be eaten corporally but so they affirm concerning the body of our blessed Lord it cannot do or suffer corporally in the Sacrament therefore it cannot be eaten corporally any more than a man can chew a spirit or eat a meditation or swallow a syllogism into his belly This would be so far from being credible that God should work so many Miracles in placing Christ's Natural body for spiritual nourishment that in case it were revealed to be placed there to that purpose it self must need one great Miracle more to verifie it and reduce it to act and it would still be as difficult to explain as it is to tell how the material fire of Hell should torment spirits and souls And Socrates in Plato's Banquent said well Wisdom is not a thing that can be communicated by local or corporal contiguity 3. That the Corporal presence does not nourish spiritually appears because some are nourished spiritually who do not receive the Sacrament at all and some that do receive yet fall short of being spiritually nourished and so do all unworthy Communicants This therefore is to no purpoose and therefore cannot be supposed to be done by the wise God of all the World especially with so great a pomp of Miracles 4. Cardinal Perron affirms that the Real Natural presence of Christ in the Sacrament is to greatest purpose because the residence of Christ's Natural body in our bodies does really and substantially joyn us unto God establishing a true and real Unity between God and Men. And Bellarmine speaks something like this de Euchar. l. 3. c. 9. But concerning this besides that every faithful soul is actually united to Christ without the actual residence of Christ's body in our bodies since every one that is regenerated and born a new of water and of the Spirit is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same plant with Christ as Saint Paul calls him Rom. 6.5 He hath put on Christ he is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh Galat. 3.27 Ephes. 5.30 and all this by Faith by Baptism by regeneration of the Spirit besides this I say this corporal union of our bodies to the body of God incarnate which these great and witty Dreamers dream of would make man to be God For that which hath a real and substantial unity with God is consubstantial with the true God that is he is really substantially and truly God which to affirm were highest blasphemy 5. One device more there is to pretend an usefulness of the Doctrine of Christ's Natural presence viz. that by his contact and conjunction it becomes the cause and the seed of the Resurrection But besides that this is condemn'd by Vasquez as groundless and by Suarez as improbable and a novel temerity it is highly confuted by their own Doctrine For how can the contact or touch of Christ's body have that or any effect on ours when it can neither be touch'd nor seen nor understood but by faith which Bellarmine expresly affirms But to return from whence I am digressed Tertullian adds in the same place Quia sermo caro erat factus proinde in causam vitae appetendus devorandus auditu ruminandus intellectu fide digerendus Nam paulò antè carnem suam panem quoque coelestem pronunciârat urgens usquequaque per allegoriam necessariorum pabulorum memoriam Patrum qui panes carnes Egyptiorum praeverterant
divinae vocationi Because the Word was made flesh therefore he was desired for life to be devoured by hearing to be ruminated or chewed by the understanding to be digested by faith For a little before he called his flesh also celestial bread still or all the way urging by an allegory of necessary food the memory of their Fathers who preferrd the bread and flesh of Egypt before the Divine calling 11. S. Athanasius or who is the Author of the Tractate upon the words Quicunque dixerit verbum in filium hominis in his works saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The things which he speaks are not carnal but spiritual For to how many might his body suffice for meat that it should become the nourishment of the whole World But for this it was that he put them in mind of the ascension of the Son of man into Heaven that he might draw them off from carnal and corporal sences and that they might learn that his flesh which he called meat was from above heavenly and spiritual nourishment For saith he the things that I have spoken they are spirit and they are life 12. But Origen is yet more decretory in this affair Est in novo Testamento litera quae occidit eum qui non spiritualiter ea quae dicuntur adverterit si enim secundùm literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam biberitis sanguinem meam occidit haec litera If we understand these words of Christ Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood literally this letter kills For there is in the new Testament a letter that kills him who does not spiritually understand those things which are spoken 13. S. Ambrose not only expounds it in a spiritual sence but plainly denyes the proper and natural Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus sed ille panis vitae aeternae qui animae nostrae substantiam sulcit That is not the bread of life which goes into the body but that which supports the substance of the soul And fide tangitur fide videtur non tangitur corpore non oculis comprehenditur this bread is touch'd by faith it is seen by faith and without all peradventure that this is to be understood of eating and drinking Christ by faith is apparent from Christ's own words verse 35. I am the bread of life he that cometh to me shall not hunger and he that believeth on me shall not thirst coming to Christ is eating him believing him is drinking his blood It is not touch'd by the body it is not seen with the eyes S. Chrysostom in his 47. Homily upon this Chapter of S. John expounds these words in a spiritual sence for these things saith he are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as have in them nothing carnal nor any carnal consequence 14. S. Austin gave the same exposition Vt quid paras dentes ventrem crede manducasti and again Credere in eum hoc est manducare panem vivum Qui credit in eum manducat 15. Theophylact makes the spiritual sence to be the only answer in behalf of our not being Canibals or devourers of mans flesh as the men of Capernaum began to dream and the men of Rome though in better circumstances to this day dream on Putabant isti quòd Deus cogeret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quia enim nos hoc spiritualiter intelligimus neque carnium voratores sumus imò sanctificamur per talem cibum non sumus carnis voratores The men of Capernaum thought Christ would compel them to devour mans flesh But because we understand this spiritually therefore we are not devourers of mans flesh but are sanctified by this meat Perfectly to the same sence and almost in the very words Theodorus Bishop of Hieraclea is quoted in the Greek Catena upon John 16. It were easie to add that Eusebius calls the words of Christ his flesh and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that so also does S. Hierom saying that although it may be understood in mystery tamen veriùs corpus Christi sanguis ejus sermo scripturarum est that so does Clemens Alexandrinus that S. Basil sayes that his Doctrine and his mystical coming is his flesh and blood that S. Bernard sayes to imitate his life and communicate with his passion is to eat his flesh But I decline for the present to insist upon these because all of them excepting S. Hierom only may be supposed to be mystical Expositions which may be true and yet another Exposition may be true too It may suffice that it is the direct sence of Tertullian Origen Athanasius S. Ambrose S. Austin and Theophylact that these woâ—ds of Christ in the sixth of S. John are not to be understood in the natural or proper but in the spiritual sence The spiritual they declare not to be the mystical but the literal sence and therefore their testimonies cannot be eluded by any such pretence 17. And yet after all this suppose that Christ in these words did speak of the Sacramental manducation and affirm'd that the bread which he would give should be his flesh what is this to Transubstantiation That Christ did speak of the Sacrament as well as of any other mystery of this amongst others that is of all the wayes of taking him is to me highly probable Christ is the food of our souls this food we receive in at our ears mouth our hearts and the allusion is plainer in the Sacrament than in any other external right because of the similitude of bread and eating which Christ used upon occasion of the miracle of the loaves which introduc'd all that discourse But then this comes in only as it is an act of faith for the meat which Christ gives is to be taken by faith himself being the Expounder Now the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist being acts and Symbols and consignations of faith and effects of believing that is of the first and principal receiving him by faith in his words and submission to his Doctrine may well be meant here not by vertue of the words for the whole form of expression is Metaphorical not at all proper but by the proportion of reason and nature of his effect it is an act or manner of receiving Christ and an issue of faith and therefore is included in the mystery The food that Christ said he would give is his flesh which he would give for the life of the world viz. to be crucified and killed And from that verse forward he doth more particularly refer to his death for he speaks of bread only before or meat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but now he speaks of flesh and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread and drink and therefore by Analogy he may allude to the Sacrament which is his similitude and representation but this is but the meaning of the
second or third remove if here Christ begins to change the particulars of his discourse it can primarily relate to nothing but his death upon the Cross at which time he gave his flesh for the life of the world and so giving it it became meat the receiving this gift was a receiving of life for it was given for the life of the world The manner of receiving it is by faith and hearing the word of God submitting our understanding the digesting this meat is imitating the life of Christ conforming to his doctrine and example and as the Sacraments are instruments or acts of this manducation so they come under this discourse and no otherwise 18. But to return This very allegory of the word of God to be called meat and particularly Manna which in this Chapter Christ particularly alludes to is not unusual in the old Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses said unto them This is the word which the Lord hath given us to eat This is the word which the Lord hath ordained you see what is the food of the soul even the eternal Word of God c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Word of God the most honourable and eldest of things is called Mana and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The soul is nourished by the Word qui pastus pulcherrimus est animorum 19. And therefore now I will resume those testimonies of Clemens Alexandrinus of Eusebius S. Basil S. Hierome and S. Bernard which I wav'd before all agreeing upon this exposition that the word of God Christs doctrine is the flesh he speaks of and the receiving it and practising it are the eating his flesh for this sence is the literal and proper and S. Hierom is express to affirm that the other exposition is mystical and that this is the more true and proper and therefore the saying of Bellarmine that they only give the mystical sence is one of his confident sayings without reason or pretence of proof and whereas he adds that they do not deny that these words are also understood literally of the Sacrament I answer it is sufficient that they agree in this sence and the other Fathers do so expound it with an exclusion to the natural sence of eating Christ in the Sacrament particularly this appears in the testimonies of Origen and Saint Ambrose above quoted to which I add the words of Eusebius in the third book of his Theologia Ecclesiastica expounding the 63. verse of the sixth of Saint John he brings in Christ speaking thus Think not that I speak of this flesh which I bear and do not imagine that I appoint you to drink this sensible and corporal blood But know ye that the words which I have spoken are spirit and life Nothing can be fuller to exclude their interpretation and to affirm ours though to do so be not usual unless they were to expound Scripture in opposition to an adversary and to require such hard conditions in the sayings of men that when they speak against Titius they shall be concluded not to speak against Cajus if they do not clap their contrary negative to their positive affirmative though Titius and Cajus be against one another in the cause is a device to escape rather than to intend truth and reality in the discourses of men I conclude It is notorious and evident what Erasmus notes upon this place Hunc locum veteres interpretantur de doctrinâ coelesti sic enim dicit panem suum ut frequenter dixit sermonem suum The Ancient Fathers expound this place of the heavenly doctrine so he calls the bread his own as he said often the word to be his And if the concurrent testimonies of Origen Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus S. Basil Athanasius Eusebius S. Hierom S. Ambrose S. Austin Theophylact and S. Bernard are a good security for the sence of a place of Scripture we have read their evidence and may proceed to sentence 20. But it was impossible but these words falling upon the allegory of bread and drink and signifying the receiving Christ crucified and communicating with his passion in all the wayes of Faith and Sacrament should also meet with as allegorical expounders and for the likeness of expression be referr'd to sacramental manducation And yet I said this cannot at all infer Transubstantiation though sacramental manducation were only and principally intended For if it had been spoken of the Sacrament the words had been verified in the spiritual sumption of it for as Christ is eaten by faith out of the Sacrament so is he also in the Sacrament as he is real and spiritual meat to the worthy Hearer so is he to the worthy Communicant as Christ's flesh is life to all that obey him so to all that obediently remember him so Christ's flesh is meat indeed however it be taken if it be taken spiritually but not however it be taken if it be taken carnally He is nutritive in all the wayes of spiritual manducation but not in all the wayes of natural eating by their own confession nor in any by ours And therefore it is a vain confidence to run away with the conclusion if they should gain one of the premises But the truth is this It is neither properly spoken of the Sacrament neither if it were would it prove any thing of Transubstantiation 21. I will not be alone in my assertion though the reasonableness and evidence would bear me out Saint Austin saith the same Spiritualiter intelligite quod loquutus sum vobis Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis Sacramentum aliquod commendavi vobis spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit nos That which I have spoken is to be understood spiritually ye are not to eat that body which ye see I have commended a Sacrament to you which being understood spiritually will give you life where besides that he gives testimony to the main question on our behalf he also makes sacramentally and spiritually to be all one And again Vt quia jam similitudinem mortis ejus in baptismo accipimus similitudinem quoque sanguinis carnis sumamus ita ut veritas non desit in sacramento ridiculum nullum fiat in Paganis quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus That as we receive the similitude of his Death in Baptism so we may also receive the likeness of his Flesh and Blood so that neither truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor the Pagans ridiculously affirm that we should drink the blood of the crucified Man Nothing could be spoken more plain in this Question We receive Christ's body in the Eucharist as we are baptized into his death that is by figure and likeness In the Sacrament there is a verity or truth of Christ's body and yet no drinking of blood or eating of flesh so as the Heathen may calumniate us by saying we do that which the men of Capernaum thought Christ taught
them they should So that though these words were spoken of Sacramental manducation as sometimes it is expounded yet there is reality enough in the spiritual sumption to verifie these words of Christ without a thought of any bodily eating his flesh And that we may not think this Doctrine dropt from S. Austin by chance he again affirms dogmatically Qui discordat à Christo nec carnem ejus manducat nec sanguinem bibit etiamsi tantae rei sacramentum ad judicium suae praesumptionis quotidiè indifferenter accipiat He that disagrees from Christ that is disobeys him neither eats his flesh nor drinks his blood although to his condemnation he every day receive the Sacrament of so great a thing The consequent of which words is plainly this that there is no eating of Christ's flesh or drinking his blood but by a moral instrument faith and subordination to Christ the sacramental external eating alone being no eating of Christ's flesh but the Symbols and Sacrament of it 22. Lastly Suppose these words of Christ The bread which I shall give is my flesh were spoken literally of the Sacrament what he promised he would give he perform'd and what was here expressed in the future tense was in his time true in the present tense and therefore is alwayes presently true after consecration It follows that in the Sacrament this is true Panis est corpus Christi The bread is the body of Christ. Now I demand whether this Proposition will be owned It follows inevitably from this Doctrine If these words be spoken of the Sacrament But it is disavowed by the Princes of the party against us Hoc tamen est impossibile quòd panis sit corpus Christi It is impossible that the bread should be Christ's body saith the Gloss of Gratian and Bellarmine sayes it cannot be a true Proposition In quâ subjectum supponit proâ—pane praedicatum autem pro corpore Christi Panis enim corpus Domini res diversissimae sunt The thing that these men dread is lest it be called bread and Christ's body too as we affirm it unanimously to be and as this Argument upon their own grounds evinces it Now then how can they serve both ends I cannot understand If they will have the bread or the meat which Christ promis'd to give to be his flesh then so it came to pass and then it is bread and flesh too If it did not so come to pass and that it is impossible that bread should be Christ's flesh then when Christ said the bread which he would give should be his flesh he was not to be understood properly of the Sacrament But either figuratively in the Sacrament or in the Sacrament not at all either of which will serve the end of truth in this Question But of this hereafter By this time I hope I may conclude that Transubstantiation is not taught by our Blessed Lord in the sixth Chapter of Saint John Johannes de tertiâ Eucharisticâ coenâ nihil quidem scribit eò quod caeteri tres Evangelistae ante illum eam plenè descripsissent They are the words of Stapleton and are good evidence against them SECT IV. Of the Words of Institution 1. MULTA mala oportet interpretari eos qui unum non rectè intelligere volunt said Irenaeus they must needs speak many false things who will not rightly understand one The words of consecration are Praecipuum fundamentum totius controversiae atque adeò totius hujus altissimi mysterii said Bellarmine the greatest ground of the whole Question and by adhering to the letter the Mystery is lost and the whole party wanders in eternal intricacies and inextricable Riddles which because themselves cannot untie they torment their sense and their reason and many places of Scripture whilst they pertinaciously stick to the impossible letter and refuse the spirit of these words The Words of Institution are these S. Matth. 26.26 Jesus took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins S. Luke 22.19 And he took bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave to them saying This is my body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me Likewise also the cup after Supper saying This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you S. Mark 14.22 Jesus took bread and blessed it and gave to them and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them and they all drank of it and he said to them This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many 1 Cor. 11.23 The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread And when he had given thanks he brake it and said Take eat This is my body which is broken for you this do in remembrance of me After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the New Testament in my blood This do ye as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me 2. These words contain the Institution and are wholly called the words of Consecration in the Latine Church Concerning which the consideration is material Out of these words the Latine Church separates Hoc est corpum meum This is my body and say that these words pronounced by the Priest with due intention do effect this change of the bread into Christs body which change they call Transubstantiation But if these words do not effect any such change then it may be Christs body before the words and these may only declare what is already done by the prayers of the Holy man or else it may become Christ's body only in the use and manducation and as it will be uncertain when the change is so also it cannot be known what it is If it be Christ's body before those words then the literal sence of these words will prove nothing it is so as it will be before these words and made so by other words which refer wholly to use and then the praecipuum fundamentum the pillar and ground of Tranbsubstantiation is supplanted And if it be only after the words and not effected by the words it will be Christ's body only in the reception Now concerning this I have these things to say 3. First By what Argument can it be proved that these words Take and eat are not as effective of the change as Hoc est corpus meum This is my body If they be then the taking and eating does consecrate and it is not Christ's body till it be taken and eaten and then when that 's done it is so no more and besides that reservation circumgestation adoration
meus hic est sanguis Testamenti Now this is confuted before for it can only be true when there is no difference of subject and predicate as in all figures and sacraments and artificial representments there are Some others say This is that is this shall be my body So that is demonstrates not what is but what shall be But this prevailed not amongst them Others say that This signifies Nothing So Innocentius the third Major the Count of Mirandula De capite Fontium and Catharinus Others yet affirm that This signifies these accidents So Ruard Tapper and others whom Suarez reckons and confutes Thomas Aquinas and his Scholars affirm that This demonstrates neither bread nor the body nor nothing nor the accidents but a substance indefinitely which is under the accidents of bread as when Christ turned the water into wine he might have said Hoc est vinum not meaning that water is wine but this which is here or this which is in the vessel is wine which is an instance in which Bellarmine pleases himself very much and uses it more than once not at all considering that in this form of speech there is the same mistake as in the former for in this example there are not two things as we contend there are in the Sacrament and that to make up the proposition the understanding is forc'd to make an artificial subject and this refers to wine and is determined by his imaginary subject and makes not an essential or physical but a logical predication This which is in the vessel is wine and the proposition is identical if it be reduc'd to a substantial But when Christ said Hoc est corpus meum hoc first neither points to corpus as the others do to vinum even by their own confession nor yet secondly to an artificial subject whereby it can by imagination become demonstrative and determinate for then it were no real affirmative not at all significative much less effective of a change nor yet thirdly will they allow that it points to that subject which is really there viz. bread but what then It demonstrates something real that either 1. is not the predicate and then there would be two things disparate signified by it two distinct substances which in this case could be nothing but bread and the body of Christ or 2. it demonstrates nothing but the predicate and then the proposition were identical viz. this body of Christ is the body of Christ which is an absurd predication or else 3. it demonstrates something that is indemonstrable pointing at something that is nothing certain and then it cannot be pointed at or demonstrated for if by this which is under the species they mean any certain substance it must be bread or the body of Christ either of which undoes their cause 4. But if it be inquired by what Logick or Grammar it can be that a Pronoun demonstrative should signify indeterminately that is an individuum vagum They tell us no it does not but it signifies an individual determinate substance under the accidents of bread not according to the formality of the bread but secundùm rationem substantiae communem individuam vagè per ordinem ad accidentia but according to the formality of a substance common and individual indefinitely or indeterminately by order to those accidents So Gregory de Valentia which is as good and perfect non-sence as ever was spoken It is determinate and not determinate it is substantial in order to accidents individual and yet common universal and particular it is limited but after an unlimited manner that is it is and it is not that is it is the Logick and the Grammar and the proper sence of Transubstantiation which is not to be understood but by them that know the new and secret way to reconcile contradictories Bellarmine sweetens the sence of this as well as he may and says that the Pronoun demonstrative does point out and demonstrate the species that is the accidents of bread these accidents are certain and determinate so that the Pronoun demonstrative is on the side of the species or accidents not of the substance But yet so as to mean not the accidents but the substance and not the substance which is but which shall be for it is not the same yet which indeed is the same non-sence with the former abused or set off with a distinction the parts of which contradict each other The Pronoun demonstrative does only point to the accidents and yet does not mean the accidents but the substance under them and yet it does not mean the substance that is under them but that which shall be for the substance which is meant is not yet and it does not point at the substance but yet it means it For the substance indeed is meant by the Pronoun demonstrative but that it does not at all demonstrate it but the accidents only And indeed this is a fine secret The substance is pointed at before it is and the demonstration is upon the accidents but means the substance in obliquo but not in recto not directly but as by the bie just as a man can see a thing before it be made and by pointing at a thing which you see demonstrates or shews you a thing which shall never be seen But then if you desire to know how it was pointed at before it was that is the secret not yet revealed But finally this is the doctrine that hath prevailed at least in the Jesuits Schools This points out something under the accidents of bread meaning This which is contained under the accidents of bread is my body there it rests But before it go any further I shall disturb his rest with this Syllogism When Christ said Hoc this is my body by this he meant this which is contained under the accidents of bread is my body But at that instant that which was contained under the accidents of bread was the substance of bread Therefore to the substance of bread Christ pointed that he related to by the Pronoune demonstrative and of that he affirmed it was his body The Major is that the Jesuits contend for the Minor is affirmed by Bellarmine Quando dicitur Hoc tum non est praesens substantia corporis Christi therefore the conclusion ought to be his and owned by them However I will make bold to call it a demonstration upon their own grounds and conclude that it is bread and Christs body too and that is the doctrine of the Protestants And I add this also that it seems a great folly to declaim against us for denying the literal natural sence and yet that themselves should expound it in a sence which suffers a violence and a most unnatural ungrammatical torture for if they may change the words from the right sence and case to the oblique and indirect why may not we and it is less violence to say Hoc est corpus meum i. e. hic panis est
Symbol the name of his body and S. Cyprian speaks expresly to this purpose as you may see above Sect. 5. n. 9. 9. Sixthly The strange inconveniences and impossibilities the scandals and errours the fancy of the Capernaites and the temptations to faith arising from the literal sence of these words have been in other cases thought sufficient by all men to expound words of Scripture by tropes and allegories The heresie of the Authropomorphites and the Euchitae and the doctrine of the Chiliasts and Origen gelding himself proceeded from the literal sence of some texts of Scripture against which there is not the hundred part of so much presumption as I shall in the sequel make to appear to lie against this And yet no man puts out his right eye literally or cuts off his right hand to prevent a scandal Certain it is there hath been much greater inconvenience by following the letter of these words of institution than of any other in Scripture by so much as the danger of Idolatry and actual tyranny and uncharitable damning others and schism are worse than any temporal inconvenience or an error in a matter of speculation 10. Seventhly I argue out of S. Austins grounds thus As the Fathers did eat Christs body so do we under a diverse Sacrament and different symbols but in all the same reality whatsoever we eat the same they did eat for the difference is this only they received Christ by faith in him that was to come and we by faith in him that is come already but they had the same real benefit Christ as really as we for they had salvation as well as we But the fathers could not eat Christs flesh in a natural manner for it was not yet assumed and though it were as good an argument against our eating of it naturally that it is gone from us into heaven yet that which I now insist upon is that it was cibus spiritualis which they eat under the Sacrament of Manna therefore we under the Sacrament of bread and wine eating the same meat eat only Christ in a spiritual sence that is our spiritual meat And this is also true in the other Sacraments of the Rock and the Cloud Our Fathers eat of the same spiritual meat and drank of the same spiritual drink that is Christ so he afterwards expounds it Now if they did eat and drink Christ that is were by him in sacrament and to all reality of effect nourished up to life eternal why cannot the same spiritual meat do the same thing for us we receiving it also in sacrament and mystery 2. To which I add that all they that do communicate spiritually do receive all the blessing of the Sacrament which could not be unless the mystery were only sacramental mysterious and spiritual Maldonate speaking of something of this from the authority of S. Austin is of opinion that if S. Austin were now alive in very spite to the Calvinists he would have expounded that of Manna otherwise than he did It seems he lived in a good time when malice and the spirit of contradiction was not so much in fashion in the interpretations of the Scripture 11. Now let it be considered whether all that I have said be not abundantly sufficient to out-weigh their confidence of the literal sence of these sacramental words They find the words spoken they say they are literally to be understood they bring nothing considerable for it there is no Scripture that so expounds it there is no reason in the circumstances of the words but there is all the reason of the world against it as I have and shall shew and such for the meanest of which very many other places of Scripture are drawn from the literal sence and rest in a tropical and spiritual Now in all such cases when we find an inconvenience press the literal expression of a text instantly we find another that is figurative and why it is not so done in this the interest and secular advantages which are consequent to this opinion of the Church of Rome may give sufficient account In the mean time we have reason not to admit of the literal sence of these words not only by the analogy of other sacramental expressions in both Testaments I mean that of Circumcision and the Passeover in the Old and Baptism as Christ discoursed it to Nicodemus in the New Testament but also 2. Because the literal sence of the like words in this very Article introduced the Heresie of the Capernaites and 3. Because the subject and the predicate in the words of institution are diverse and disparate and cannot possibly be spoken of each other properly 4. The words in the natural and proper sence seem to command an unnatural thing the eating of flesh 5. They rush upon infinite impossibilities they contradict sence and reason the principles and discourses of all mankind and of all Philosophy 6. Our blessed Saviour tells us that the flesh profiteth nothing and as themselves pretend even in this mystery that his words were spirit and life 7. The literal sence cannot be explicated by themselves nor by any body for them 8. It is against the Analogy of other Scriptures 9. It is to no purpose 10. Upon the literal sence of the words the Church could not confute the Marcionites Eutychians Nestorians the Aquarii 11. It is against antiquity 12. The whole form of words in every of the members is confessed to be figurative by the opposite party 13. It is not pretended to be verifiable without an infinite company of miracles all which being more than needs and none of them visible but contestations against art and the notices of two or three sciences cannot be supposed to be done by God who does nothing superfluously 14. It seems to contradict an Article of faith viz. of Christs sitting in Heaven in a determinate place and being contained there till his second coming Upon these considerations and upon the account of all the particular arguments which I have and shall bring against it it is not unreasonable neither can it seem so that we decline the letter and adhere to the spirit in the sence of these words But I have divers things more to say in this particular from the consideration of other words of the institution and the whole nature of the thing SECT VII Considerations of the Manner and Circumstances and Annexes of the Institution 1. THE blessed Sacrament is the same thing now as it was in the institution of it But Christ did not really give his natural body in the natural sence when he eat his last Supper therefore neither does he now The first proposition is beyond all dispute certain evident and confessed Hoc facite convinces it This do what Christ did his Disciples are to do I assume Christ did not give his natural body properly in the last Supper therefore neither does he now the assumption I prove by divers arguments 2. First If then he gave
his natural body then it was naturally broken and his bloud was actually poured forth before the passion for he gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his body was delivered broken his bloud was shed Now those words were spoken either properly and naturally and then they were not true because his body was yet whole his bloud still in the proper channels or else it was spoken in a figurative and sacramental sence and so it was true as were all the words which our blessed Saviour spake for that which he then ministred was the Sacrament of his Passion 3. Secondly If Christ gave his body in the natural sence at the last Supper then it was either a sacrifice propitiatory or it was not If it was not then it is not now and then their dream of the Mass is vanished if it was propitiatory at the last Supper then God was reconciled to all the world and mankind was redeemed before the Passion of our blessed Saviour which therefore would have been needless and ineffective so fearful are the consequents of this strange doctrine 4. Thirdly If Christ gave his body properly in the last Supper and not only figuratively and in sacrament then it could not be a representment or sacrament of his Passion but a real exhibition of it but that it was a Sacrament only appears by considering that it was then alive that the Passion was future that the thing was really to be performed upon the Cross that then he was to be delivered for the life of the world In the last Supper all this was in type and sacrament because it was before and the substance was to follow after 5. Fourthly If the natural body of Christ was in the last Supper under the accidents of bread then his body at the same time was visible and invisible in the whole substance visible in his person invisible under the accidents of bread and then it would be inquired what it was which the Apostles received what benefits they could have by receiving the body naturally or whether it be imaginable that the Apostles understoood it in the literal sence when they saw his body stand by unbroken alive integral hypostatical 6. Fifthly If Christs body were naturally in the Sacrament I demand whether it be as it was in the last Supper or as upon the Cross or as it is now in Heaven Not as in the last Supper for then it was frangible but not broken but typically by design in figure and in Sacrament as it is evident in matter of fact 2. Not as on the Cross for there the body was frangible and broken too and the blood spilled and if it were so now in the Sacrament besides that it were to make Christs glorified body passible and to crucifie the Lord of life again it also were not the same body which Christ hath now for his Body that he hath now is spiritual and incorruptible and cannot be otherwise much less can it be so and not so at the same time properly and yet be the same body 3. Not as in Heaven where it is neither corruptible nor broken for then in the Sacrament there were given to us Christs glorified body and then neither were the Sacrament a remembrance of Christs death neither were the words of Institution verified This is my body which is broken besides in this we have Bellarmines confession Neque enim ore corporali sumi potest corpus Christi ut est in coelo But then if it be remembred that Christ hath no other body but that which is in Heaven and that can never be otherwise than it is and so it cannot be received otherwise properly it unanswerably follows that if it be received in any other manner as it must if it be at all it must be received not naturally or corporally but spiritually and indeed By a figure or a sacramental spiritual sence all these difficulties are easily assoiled but by the natural never 7. Sixthly At the last Supper they eat the blessed Eucharist but it was not in remembrance of Christs death for it was future then and therefore not then capable of being remembred any more than a man can be said to remember what will be done to morrow it follows from hence that then Christ only instituted a Sacrament or figurative mysterious representment of a thing that in the whole use of it was variable by heri and cras and therefore never to be naturally verified but on the Cross by a proper and natural presence because then it was so and never else at that time it was future and now it is past and in both it is relative to his death therefore it could not be a real exhibition of his body in a natural sence for that as it could not be remembred then so neither broken now that is nothing of it is natural but it is wholly ritual mysterious and sacramental For that this was the sacrament of his death appears in the words of Institution and by the preceptive words Do this in remembrance of me And in the reason subjoyned by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For so often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye shew the Lords death till he come Therefore when Christ said This is my body given or broken on my part taken eaten on yours it can be nothing else but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sacramental image of his death to effect which purpose it could not be necessary or useful to bring his natural body that so the substance should become his own shadow the natural presence be his own Sacrament or rather the image and representment of what he once suffered His body given in the Sacrament is the application and memory of his death and no more that as Christ in Heaven represents his death in the way of intercession so do we by our ministery but as in Heaven it is wholly a representing of his body crucified a rememoration of his crucifixion of his death passion by which he reconciled God and man so it is in the Sacrament after our manner This is my body given for you that is This is the Sacrament of my death in which my body was given for you For as Aquinas said in all sciences words signifie things but it is proper to Theology that things themselves signified or expressed by voices should also signifie something beyond it This is my body are the sacramental words or those words by which the mystery or the thing is sacramental it must therefore signifie something beyond these words and so they do for they signifie the death which Christ suffered in that body It is but an imperfect conception of the mystery to say it is the Sacrament of Christs body only or his blood but it is ex parte rei a Sacrament of the death of his body and to us a participation or an exhibition of it as it became beneficial to us that
is as it was crucified as it was our sacrifice And this is so wholly agreeable to the nature of the thing and the order of the words and the body of the circumstances that it is next to that which is evident in it self and needs no further light but the considering the words and the design of the Institution especially since it is consonant to the style of Scripture in the Sacrament of the Passeover and very many other instances it wholly explicates the nature of the mystery it reconciles our duty with the secret it is free of all inconvenience it prejudices no right nor hinders any real effect it hath or can have and it makes the mystery intelligible and prudent fit to be discoursed of and inserted into the rituals of a wise Religion 8. Seventhly He that receives unworthily receives no benefit to his body or to his soul by the holy Sacrament that is agreed on all sides therefore he that receives benefit to his body receives it by his worthy communicating therefore the benefit reaching to the body by the holy Eucharist comes to it by the soul therefore by the action of the soul not the action of the body therefore by faith not by the mouth whereas on the contrary if Christs body natural were eaten in the Sacrament the benefit would come to the body by his own action and to the soul by the body All that eat are not made Christs body and all that eat not are not disintitled to the resurrection the Spirit does the work without the Sacrament and in the Sacrament when 't is done The flesh profiteth nothing And this argument ought to prevail upon this account Because as is the nutriment so is the manducation If the nourishment be wholly spiritual then so is the eating But by the Roman doctrine the body of Christ does not naturally nourish therefore neither is it eaten naturally but it does nourish spiritually and therefore it is eaten only spiritually And this doctrine is also affirmed by Cajetan though how they will endure it I cannot understand Manducatur verum corpus Christi in Sacramento sed non corporalitèr sed spiritualitèr Spiritualis manducatio quae per animam fit ad Christi carnem in Sacramento existentem pertingit The true body of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament but not corporally but spiritually The spiritual manducation which is made by the soul reaches to the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament which is very good Protestant doctrine And if it be absurd to say Christs body doth nourish corporally why it should not be as absurd to say we eat it corporally is a secret which I have not yet been taught As is our eating so is the nourishing because that is in order to this therefore if you will suppose that natural eating of Christs body does nourish spiritually yet it must also nourish corporally let it do more if it may but it must do so much just as the waters in baptism although the waters are symbolical and instrumental to the purifying of the soul yet because the waters are material and corporeal they cleanse the body first and primarily so it must be in this Sacrament also if Christs body were eaten naturally it must nourish naturally and then pass further but that which is natural is first and then that which is spiritual 9. Eighthly For the likeness to the argument I insert this consideration by the doctrine of the ancient Church wicked men do not eat the body nor drink the blood of Christ. So Origen Si fieri potest ut qui malus adhuc perseveret edat verbum factum carnem cùm sit verbum panis vivus nequaquam scriptum fuisset Quisquis ederit panem hunc vivet in aeternum If it were possible for him that perseveres in wickedness to eat the word made flesh when it is the word and the living bread it had never been written Whosoever shall eat this bread shall live for ever So S. Hilary Panis qui descendit de coelo non nisi ab eo accipitur qui Dominum habet Christi membrum est The bread that came down from Heaven is not taken of any but of him who hath the Lord and is a member of Christ. Lambunt Petram saith S. Cyprian They lick the Rock that is eat not of the food and drink not of the blood that issued from thence when the Rock was smitten They receive corticem sacramenti furfur carnis saith S. Bernard the skin of the Sacrament and the bran of the flesh But Ven. Bede is plain without an allegory Omnis infidelis non vescitur carne Christi An unbelieving man is not fed with the flesh of Christ the reason of which could not be any thing but because Christ is only eaten by faith But I reserved S. Austin for the last So then these are no true receivers of Christs body in that they are none of his true members For to omit all other allegations they cannot be both the members of Christ and the members of an harlot and Christ himself saying He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him sheweth what it is to receive Christ not only sacramentally but truly for this is to dwell in Christ and Christ in him For thus he spoke as if he had said He that dwelleth not in me nor I in him cannot say he eateth my flesh or drinketh my blood In which words if the Roman Doctors will be judged by S. Austin for the sence of the Church in this Question and will allow him in this point to be a good Catholick 1. He dogmatically declares that the wicked man does not eat Christs body truly 2. He does eat it sacramentally 3. That to eat with effect is to eat Christs body truly to which if they please to add this That to eat it spiritually is to eat it with effect it follows by S. Austins doctrine that spiritually is really and that there is no true and real body of Christ eaten in the Sacrament but by the faithful receiver or if you please receive the conclusion in the words of S. Austin Tunc erit unicuique corpus sanguis Christi si quod in sacramento sumitur in ipsâ veritate spiritualiter manducetur spiritualiter bibatur then to each receiver it becomes the body and blood of Christ if that which is taken in the Sacrament be in the very truth it self spiritually eaten and spiritually drunk which words of S. Austin Bellarmine upon another occasion being to answer in stead of answering grants it and tells that this manner of speaking is very usual in S. Austin the truest answer in all his books but whether it be for him or against him he ought to have considered Neither can this be put off with saying that the wicked do not truly eat Christ that is not to any benefit or purpose but that this
does not mean they receive him not at all Just as we say when a man eats but a little he does not eat for as good never a jot as never the better This I say is not a sufficient escape 1. Because S. Austin opposes sacramental receiving to the true and real and says that the wicked only receive it sacramentally but not the thing whose Sacrament it is so that this is not a proposition of degrees but there is a plain opposition of one to the other 2. It is true S. Austin does not say that the wicked do not receive Christ at all for he says they receive him sacramentally but he says they do not at all receive him truly and the wicked man cannot say he does and he proves this by unanswerable arguments out of Scripture 3. This excuse will not with any pretence be fitted with the sayings of the other Fathers nor to all the words of S. Austin in this quotation and much less in others which I have and shall remark particularly this that he calls that which the wicked eat nothing but signum corporis sanguinis His words are these Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus procul dubio non manducat spiritualiter carnem non bibit sanguinem licèt carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus signum corporis sanguinis he does not eat the body and drink the blood spiritually although carnally and visibly he presses with his teeth the sign of the body and blood Plainly all the wicked do but eat the sign of Christs body all that is to be done beyond is to eat it spiritually There is no other eating but these two and from S. Austin it was that the Schools received that famous distinction of Panis Dominus and Panis Domini Judas received the bread of the Lord against the Lord But the other Apostles received the bread which was the Lord that is his body But I have already spoken of the matter of this argument in the third Paragraph num 7. which the Reader may please to add to this to make it fuller 10. Ninthly Lastly In the words of Institution and Consecration as they call them the words which relate to the consecrated wine are so different in the Evangelists and S. Paul respectively as appears by comparing them together that 1. It does not appear which words were literally spoken by our blessed Saviour for all of them could not be so spoken as they are set down 2. That they all regarded the sence and meaning of the mystery not the letters and the syllables 3. It is not possible to be certain that Christ intended the words of any one of them to be consecratory or effective of what they signifie for every one of the relators differ in the words though all agree in the things as the Reader may observe in the beginning of the fourth Paragraph where the four forms are set by each other to be compared 4. The Church of Rome in the consecration of the Chalice uses a form of words which Christ spake not at all nor are related by S. Matthew or S. Mark or S. Luke or S. Paul but she puts in some things and changes others her form is this Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi aeterni Testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum For this is the chalice of my blood of the New and eternal Testament the mystery of faith which shall be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins what is added is plain what is altered would be very material if the words were consecratory for they are not so likely to be operative and effective as the words of Christ recited by S. Matthew and S. Mark this is my blood and if this had not been the ancient form used in the Church of Rome long before the doctrine of Transubstantiation was thought of it is not to be imagined that they would have refused the plainer words of Scripture to have made the Article more secret the form less operative the authority less warrantable the words less simple and natural But the corollary which is natural and proper from the particulars of this argument is that the mystery was so wholly spiritual that it was no matter by what words it were expressed so the spirit of it were retained and yet if it had been an historical natural proper sence that had been intended it ought also in all reason to have been declared or much more effected by a natural and proper and constant affirmative But that there is nothing spoken properly is therefore evident because there are so many predications and all mean the same mystery Hic est sanguis meus N. Testamenti and Hic calix est N. Testamentum in meo sanguine and Hic est calix sanguinis mei in the Roman Missal all this declares it is mysterium fidei and so to be taken in all sences and those words are left in their Canon as if on purpose either to prevent the literal and natural understanding of the other words or for the reducing the communicants to the only apprehensions of faith It is mysterium fidei not sanguis naturalis a mystery of faith not natural blood For supposing that both the forms used by S. Matthew and S. Luke respectively could be proper and without a figure and S. Matthews Hic est sanguis Testamenti did signifie This is the divine promise for so Bellarmine dreams that Testament there signifies and that in S. Lukes words This cup is the Testament it signifies the instrument of the Testament for so a Will or a Testament is taken either for the thing willed or the Parchment in which it is written yet how are these or either of these affirmative of the wine being transubstantiated into blood It says nothing of that and so if this sence of those words does avoid a trope it brings in a distinct proposition if it be spoken properly it is more distant from giving authority to their new doctrine and if the same word have several sences then in the sacramental proposition as it is described by the several Evangelists there are several predicates and therefore it is impossible that all should be proper And yet besides this although he thinks he may freely say any thing if he covers it with a distinction yet the very members of this distinction conclude against his conclusion for if Testament in one place be taken for the instrument of his Testament it is a tropical loquution just as I say my bible meaning my book is the word of God that is contains the word of God it is a Metonymie of the thing containing for that which it contains But this was more than I needed and therefore I am content it should pass for nothing SECT VIII Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture 1.
THUS I have by very many arguments taken from the words and circumstances and annexes of the Institution or Consecration proved that the sence of this mystery is mysterious and spiritual that Christs body is eaten only sacramentally by the body but really and effectively only by faith which is the mouth of the soul that the flesh profiteth nothing but the words which Christ spake are spirit and life And let it be considered Whether besides a pertinacious resolution that they will understand these words as they found in the letter not as they are intended in the spirit there be any thing or indeed can be in the nature of the thing or circumstances of it or usefulness or in the different forms of words or the Analogy of the other discourses of Christ that can give colour to their literal sence against which so much reason and Scripture and arguments from Antiquity do contest This only I observe that they bring no pretence of other Scriptures to warrant this interpretation but such which I have or shall wrest out of their hands and which to all mens first apprehensions and at the very first sight do make against them and which without curious notion and devices cannot pretend on their side as appears first in the tenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians Verses 16 17. 2. Out of which I have already proved that Christs body is not taken in the natural sence but in the spiritual But when Bellarmine had out of the same words forced for himself three arguments proving nothing to save any man the labour of answering them he adds at the end of them these words Sed tota difficultas est as corporaliter realiter propriè sumatur sanguis caro an solùm significativè spiritualiter Quod autem corporaliter propriè probari posset omnibus argumentis quibus suprà probavimus propriè esse intelligenda verba illa institutionis Hoc est corpus meum That is after his arguments out of the first Epistle to the Corinthians were ended all the difficulty of the question still remained and that he was fain to prove by Hoc est corpus meum and the proper arguments of that but brings nothing from the words of S. Paul in this Chapter But to make up this also he does corrodere scrape together some things extrinsecal to the words of this authority as 1. That the literal sence is to be presumed unless the contrary be proved which is very true but I have evidently proved the contrary concerning the words of Institution and for the words in this Chapter if the literal sence be preferred then the bread remains after Consecration because it is called bread 2. So the Primitive Saints expounded it which how true it is I shall consider in his own place 3. The Apostle calling the Gentiles from their sacrificed flesh proposes to them a more excellent banquet but it were not more excellent if it were only a figure of Christs body so Bellarmine which is a fit cover for such a dish for 1. We do not say that in the Sacrament we only receive the sign and figure of Christs body but all the real effects and benefits of it 2. If we had yet it is not very much better than blasphemy to say that the Apostles had not prevailed upon that account For if the very figure and sacrament of Christs body be better than sacrifices offered to Devils the Apostle had prevailed though this sentence were true that in the Sacrament we receive only the figure And thus I have for all that is said against it made it apparent that there is nothing in that place for their corporal presence 3. There is one thing more which out of Scripture they urge for the corporal presence viz. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body and he shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Where they observe that they that eat unworthily do yet eat Christs body because how else could they be guilty of it and condemned for not discerning it 4. To this I answer many things 1. S. Paul does not say He that eateth and drinketh Christs body and blood unworthily c. but indefinitely He that eateth and drinketh c. yet it is probable he would have said so if it had been a proper form of speech because by so doing it would have layed a greater load upon them 2. Where S. Paul does not speak indefinitely he speaks most clearly against the Article in the Roman sence for he calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The cup of the Lord and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this bread and he that eats this bread unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of Christ and now these comminatory phrases are quitted from their pretence but yet they have their proper consideration Therefore 3. Not discerning the Lords body is not separating it from profane and common usages not treating it with addresses proper to the mystery To which phrase Justin gives light in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we do not receive it as common bread and common drink but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but nourishment made Eucharistical or blessed by the word of Prayer and so it is the body and blood of the Lord. 4. It is the body of the Lord in the same sence here as in the words of institution which I have evinced to be exegetical sacramental and spiritual and by despising the sacrament of it we become guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Reus erit corporis sanguinis Christi qui tanti mysterii sacramentum despexerit saith S. Hierome And it is in this as Severianus said concerning the statutes of Theodosius broken in despight by the Antiochians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you abuse the Kings Image the affront relates to your Prince 5. The unworthy receiver is guilty of the body and blood of Christ not naturally for that cannot now be and nothing is a greater probation of the spiritual sence of the words in this place than this which they would intice into their party For Christs body is glorified and not capable of natural injury but the evil communicant is guilty of the body and blood of Christ just as relapsing Christians are said by the same Apostles to crucifie the Lord of life again and put him to an open shame which I suppose they cannot do naturally or corporally One is as the other that is both are tropical or figurative 5. These are all that they pretend from Scripture and all these are nothing to their purpose but now besides what I have already said I shall bring arguments from other Scriptures which will not so easily be put off SECT IX Arguments from other Scriptures proving Christs Real Presence in the Sacrament to be only Spiritual not Natural 1. THE first is taken from those words of our
blessed Saviour Whatsoever entereth into the mouth goeth into the belly and is cast forth into the draught meaning that all food that is taken by the mouth hath for his share the fortune of the belly and indeed manducation and ejection are equally deminutions of any perfect thing and because it cannot without blasphemy be spoken that the natural body of Christ ought or can suffer ejection neither can it suffer manducation To this Bellarmine weakly answers that these words of Christ are only true of that which is taken to nourish the body which saying of his is not true for if it be taken to purge the body or to make the body sick or to make it lean or to minister to lust or to chastise the body as those who in pennances have masticated aloes and other bitter gums yet still it is cast into the draught 2. But suppose his meaning true yet this argument will not so be put off because although the end of receiving the blessed Sacrament is not to nourish the body yet that it does nourish the body is affirmed by Irenaeus Justin Martyr and others of which I have already given an account To which I here add the plain words of Rabanus Illud corpus Christi in nos convertitur dum id manducamus bibimus That body is chang'd into us when we eat it and drink it and therefore although it hath a higher purpose yet this also cannot be avoided 3. Either we may manducate the accidents only or else the substance of bread or the substance of Christs body If we manducate only the accidents then how do we eat Christs body If we manducate bread then 't is capable of all the natural alterations and it cannot be denied But if we manducate Christs body after a natural manner what worse thing is it that it descends into the guts than that it goes into the stomach to be cast forth than to be torn in pieces with the teeth as I have proved that it is by the Roman Doctrine Now I argue thus if we eat Christs natural body we eat it either Naturally or Spiritually if it be eaten only Spiritually then it is Spiritually digested and is Spiritual nourishment and puts on accidents and affections Spiritual But if the natural body be eaten naturally then what hinders it from affections and transmutations natural 4. Although Algerus and out of him Bellarmine would have Christians stop their ears against this argument and so would I against that doctrine of which these fearful conclusions are unavoidable consequents yet it is disputed in the Summa Angelica and an instance or case put which to my sence seems no inconsiderable argument to reprove the folly of this doctrine For saith he what if the Species pass indigested into the belly from the stomach He answers that they were not meat if they did not nourish and therefore it is probable as Boetius says that the body of our Lord does not go into the draught though the Species do And yet it is determined by the Gloss on the Canon Law that as long as the species remain uncorrupted the holy body is there under those Species and therefore may be vomited and consequently ejected all ways by which the Species can pass unalter'd Eousque progreditur corpus quousque species said Harpsfield in his disputation at Oxford If these things be put together viz. the body is there so long as the Species are uncorrupted and the Species may remain uncorrupted till they be cast upwards or downwards as in case of sickness it follows that in this case which is a case easily contingent by their doctrine the holy body must pass in latrinam And what then it is to be ador'd as a true Sacrament though it come from impure places though it be vomited So said Vasquez and it is the prevailing opinion in their Church Add to this that if this nourishment does not descend and cleave to the guts of the Priest it is certain that God does not hear his prayers for he is enjoyned by the Roman Missal published by authority of the Council of Trent and the command of Pope Pius the Fourth to pray Corpus tuum domine quod sumpsi sanguis quem potavi adhaereat visceribus meis Let thy body O Lord which I have taken and the blood which I have drunk cleave to my bowels It seems indeed they would have it go no further to prevent the inconveniences of the present argument but certain it is that if they intended it for a figurative speech it was a bold one and not so fitted for edification as for an objection But to return This also was the argument of Origen Quod si quicquid ingreditur in os in ventrem abit in secessum ejicitur ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei perque obsecrationem juxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum ejicitur haec quidem de typico symbolicóque corpore He plainly distinguishes the material part from the spiritual in the Sacrament and affirms that according to the material part that meat that is sanctified by the word of God and prayer enters into the mouths descends into the belly and goes forth in the natural ejection And this is only true of the typical and symbolical body Now besides that it affirms the words of our blessed Saviour to have effect in the Sacrament he affirms that the material part the type and symbols are the body of Christ that is his body is present in a typical and symbolical manner This is the plain and natural sence of the words of Origen But he must not mean what he means if he says any thing in an other place that may make for the Roman opinion And this is their way of answering objections brought from the Fathers they use to oppose words to words and conclude they must mean their meaning or else they contradict themselves And this trick Bellarmine uses frequently and especially Cardinal Perron and from them the lesser Writers And so it happens in this present argument for other words of Origen are brought to prove he inclined to the Roman opinion But I demand are the words more contradictory if they be both drawn to a spiritual sence than if they be both drawn to a natural 2. Though we have no need to make use of it yet it is no impossible thing that the Fathers should contradict one another and themselves too as you may see pretended violently by Cardinal Perron in his answer to K. James 3. But why must all sheaves bow to their sheaf and all words be wrested to their fancy when there are no words any where pretended from them but with less wresting than these must suffer for them they will be brought to speak against them or at least nothing for them But let us see what other words Origen hath by which we must expound
these 4. Origen says that the Christian people drinketh the blood of Christ and the flesh of the word of God is true food What then so say we too but it is Spiritual food and we drink the blood Spiritually He says nothing against that but very much for it as I have in several places remarked already 5. But how can this expound the other words Christian people eat Christs flesh and drink his blood therefore when Origen says the material part the Symbolical body of Christ is eaten naturally and cast into the draught he means not the body of Christ in his material part but the accidents of bread the colour the taste the quantity these are cast out by the belly Verily a goodly argument if a man could guess in what mood and figure it could conclude 6. When a man speaks distinctly and particularly it is certain he is easier to be understood in his particular and minute meaning than when he speaks generally But here he distinguishes a part from a part one sence from another the body in one sence from the body in another therefore these words are to expound the more general and not they to expound these unless the general be more particular than that that is distinguished into kinds that is unless the general be a particular and the particular be a general 7. Amalarius was so amus'd with these words and discourse of Origen that his understanding grew giddy and he did not know whether the body of Christ were invisibly taken up into Heaven or kept till our death in the body or expired at letting of blood or exhal'd in air or spit out or breath'd forth our Lord saying That which enters into the mouth descends into the belly and so goes forth into the draught The man was willing to be of the new opinion of the Real Presence because it began to be the mode of the Age. But his folly was soberly reproved by a Synod at Carisiacum about the time of Pope Gregory the Fourth where the difficulty of Origens argument was better answered and the Article determined that the bread and wine are spiritually made the body of Christ which being a meat of the mind and not of the belly is not corrupted but remaineth unto everlasting life 8. To expound these words of the accidents of bread only and say that they enter into the belly and go forth in the draught is a device of them that care not what they say for 1. It makes that the ejectamentum or excrement of the body should consist of colour and quantity without any substance 2. It makes a man to be nourished by accidents and so not only one substance to be changed into another but that accidents are changed into substances which must be if they nourish the body and pass in latrinam and then beyond the device of Transubstantiation we have another production from Africa a transaccidentisubstantiation a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. It makes accidents to have all the affections of substances as motion substantial corruption alteration that is not to be accidents but substances For matter and form are substances and those that integrate all physical and compound substances but till yesterday it was never heard that accidents could Yea but magnitude is a material quality and ground or subject of the accidents So it is said but it is nonsence For besides that magnitude is not a quality but a quantity neither can it be properly or truly said to be material but imperfectly because it is an affection of matter and however it is a contradiction to say that it is the ground of qualities for an accident cannot be the fundamentum the ground or subject of an accident that is the formality and definition of a substance as every young scholar hath read in Aristotles Categories so that to say that it is the ground of accidents is to say that accidents are subjected in magnitude that is that magnitude is neither a quantity nor quality but a substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An accident always subsists in a subject says Porphyrie 9. This answer cannot be fitted to the words of Origen for that which he calls the quid materiale or the material part in the Sacrament he calls it the Symbolical body which cannot be affirmed of accidents because there is no likeness between the accidents the colour the shape the figure the roundness the weight the magnitude of the host or wafer and Christs body and therefore to call the accidents a Symbolical body is to call it an unsymbolical Symbol an unlike similitude a representment without analogy But if he means the consecrated bread the whole action of consecration distribution sumption manducation this is the Symbolical body according to the words of S. Paul He that drinks this cup and eats this bread represents the Lords death it is the figure of Christs crucified body of his passion and our redemption 10. It is a strange expression to call accidents a body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Aristotle a body may be called white but the definition or reason of the accident can never be affirmed of a body I conclude that this argument out of the words of our blessed Saviour urged also and affirmed by Origen do prove that Christs body is in the Sacrament only to be eaten in a Spiritual sence not at all in a Natural lest that consequent be the event of it which to affirm of Christs glorified body in the natural and proper sence were very blasphemy 2. The next argument from Scripture is taken from Christs departing from this world his going from us the ascension of his body and soul into Heaven his not being with us his being contained in the Heavens So said our blessed Saviour Vnless I go hence the Comforter cannot come and I go to prepare a place for you The poor ye have always but me ye have not always S. Peter affirms of him that the Heavens must receive him till the time of restitution of all things Now how these things can be true of Christ according to his humane nature that is a circumscribed body and a definite soul is the question And to this the answer is the same in effect which is given by the Roman Doctors and by the Vbiquitaries whom they call Hereticks These men say Christs humane nature is every where actually by reason of his hypostatical union with the Deity which is every where the Romanists say no it is not actually every where but it may be where and is in as many places as he please for although he be in Heaven yet so is God too and yet God is upon earth eodem modo says Bellarmine in the same manner the Man Christ although he be in Heaven yet also he can be out of Heaven where he please he can be in Heaven and out of Heaven Now these two opinions are concentred in the main impossibility that is that Christs body can
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
and flesh hath been pull'd out of the mouths of the communicants and Plegilus the Priest saw an Angel shewing Christ to him in form of a child upon the Altar whom first he took in his arms and kissed but did eat him up presently in his other shape in the shape of a Wafer Speciosa certè pax Nebulonis ut qui oris praebuerat basium dentium inferret exitium said Berengarius It was but a Judas kiss to kiss with the lip and bite with the teeth But if such stuffe as this may go for argument we may be cloyed with them in those unanswerable Authors Simeon Metaphrastes for the Greeks and Jacobus de Voragine for the Latin who make it a trade to lye for God and for the interest of the Catholick cause But however I shall tell a piece of a true story In the time of Soter Pope of Rome there was an Impostor called Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was his appellative and he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pretending to make the Chalice of wine and water Eucharistical saying long prayers over it made it look red or purple that it might be thought that grace which is above all things does drop the blood into the Chalice by invocation Such as these have been often done by humane artifice or by operation of the Devil said Alexander of Ales. If such things as these were done regularly it were pretence enough to say it is flesh and blood that is in the Eucharist but when nothing of this is done by God but Hereticks and Knaves Juglers and Impostors hoping to change the Sacrament into a charm by abusing the spiritual sence into a gross and carnal against the authority of Scripture and the Church reason or religion have made pretences of those things and still the Holy Sacrament in all the times of ministration hath the form and all the perceptibilities of bread and wine as we may believe those Impostors did more rely upon the pretences of sense than of other arguments and distrusting them did flye to these as the greater probation so we rely upon that way of probation which they would have counterfeited but which indeed Christ in his institution hath still left in the nature of the symbols viz. that it is that which it seems to be and that the other superinduc'd predicate of the body of Christ is to be understood only in that sence which may still consist with that substance whose proper and natural accidents remain and are perceived by the mouth and hands and eyes of all men To which this may be added that by the doctrine of the late Roman Schools all those pretences of real appearances of Christs body or blood must be necessarily concluded to be Impostures or aery phantasmes and illusions because themselves teach that Christs body is so in the Sacrament that Christs own eyes cannot see his own body in the Sacrament and in that manner by which it is there it cannot be made visible no not by the absolute power of God Nay it can be neither seen nor touched nor tasted nor felt nor imagined It is the doctrine of Suarez in 3. Tho. disp 53. Sect. 3. and disp 52. Sect. 1. and of Vasquez in 3. t. 3. disp 191. n. 22. which besides that it reproves the whole Article by making it incredible and impossible it doth also infinitely convince all these apparitions if ever there were any of deceit and fond illusion I had no more to say in this particular but that the Roman Doctors pretend certain words out of S. Cyrils fourth mystagogique Catechism against the doctrine of this Paragraph Pro certissimo habeas c. Be sure of this that this bread which is seen of us is not bread although the taste perceives it to be bread but the body of Christ For under the species of bread the body is given to thee under the species of wine the blood is given to thee Here if we will trust S. Cyrils words at least in Bellarmine's and Brerely's sence and understand of them before you will believe your own eyes you may For S. Cyril bids you not believe your sense For taste and sight tells you it is bread but it is not But here is no harm done 2. For himself plainly explains his meaning in his next Catechism Think not that you taste bread and wine saith he No what then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the antitypes of the body and blood and in this very place he calls bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a type 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore it is very ill rendred by the Roman Priests by Species which signifies accidental forms for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no such thing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not S. Cyrils word 3. He says it is not bread though the taste feel it so that is it is not meer bread which is an usual expression among the Fathers Non est panis communis says Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Justin Martyr just as S. Chrysostome says of Baptismal water it is not common water and as S. Cyril himself says of the sacramental bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not meer bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Lords body For if it were not that in some sence or other it were still meer bread but that it is not But this manner of speaking is not unusual in the holy Scriptures that restrained and modificated negatives be propounded in simple and absolute forms I have given them statutes which are not good Ezek. 20.25 I will have mercy and not sacrifice Hos. 6.6 They have not rejected thee but me 1 Sam. 8.7 It is not you that speak but the Spirit of my Father I came not to send peace but a sword S. Mat. 10.20 34. He that believeth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me And If I bear witness of my self my witness is not true S. John 5.31 which is expresly confronted by S. John 8.14 Though I bear record of my self yet my record is true which shews manifestly that the simple and absolute negative in the former place must in his signification be restrained So S. Paul speaks usually Henceforth I know no man according to the flesh 2 Cor. 5.16 We have no strife against flesh and blood Ephes. 6.12 And in the ancient Doctors nothing more ordinary than to express limited sences by unlimited words which is so known that I should lose my time and abuse the Readers patience if I should heap up instances So Irenaeus He that hath received the Spirit is no more flesh and blood but Spirit And Epiphanius affirms the same of the flesh of a temperate man It is not flesh but is changed into Spirit so we say of a drunken man and a furious person He is not a man but a beast And they speak thus particularly in the matter of the holy Sacrament as appears in the instances above
reckoned and in others respersed over this Treatise But to return to the present objection it is observable that S. Cyril does not say it is not bread though the sense suppose it to be so for that would have supposed the taste to have been deceived which he affirms not and if he had we could not have believed him but he says though the sense perceive it to be bread so that it is still bread else the taste would not perceive it to be so but it is more and the sense does not perceive it for it is the body of our Lord here then is his own answer plainly opposed to the objection he says it is not bread that is it is not meer bread and so say we he says that it is the body of our Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the antitype of the Lords body and so say we He says the sense perceives it to be bread but it is more than the sense perceives so he implies and so we affirm and yet we may trust our sense for all that it tells us and our understanding too for all it learns besides The like to this are the words of S. Chrysostome where he says We cannot be deceived by his words but our sense is often deceived look not at what is before us but observe Christs words Nothing sensible is given to us but things insensible by things sensible c. This and many higher things than this are in S. Chrysostome not only relating to this but to the other Sacrament also Think not thou receivest the body from a man but fire from the tongue of a Seraphim that for the Eucharist and for Baptism this The Priest baptizes thee not but God holds thy head In the same sence that these admit in the same sence we may understand his other words they are Tragical and high but may have a sober sence but literally they sound a contradiction that nothing sensible should be given us in the Sacrament and yet that nothing insensible should be given but what is conveyed by things sensible but it is not worth the while to stay here Only this the words of S. Chrysostome are good counsel and such as we follow for in this case we do not finally rely upon sense or resolve all into it but we trust it only for so much as it ought to be trusted for but we do not finally rest upon it but upon faith and look not on the things proposed but attend to the words of Christ and though we see it to be bread we also believe it to be his body in that sence which he intended SECT XI The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason 1. WHEN we discourse of mysteries of Faith and Articles of Religion it is certain that the greatest reason in the world to which all other reasons must yield is this God hath said it therefore it is true Now if God had expresly said This which seems to be bread is my body in the natural sence or to that purpose there had been no more to be said in the affair all reasons against it had been but sophismes When Christ hath said This is my body no man that pretends to Christianity doubts of the truth of these words all men submitting their understanding to the obedience of Faith But since Christ did not affirm that he spake it in the natural sence but there are not only in Scripture many prejudices but in common sense much evidence against it if reason also protests against the Article it is the voice of God and to be heard in this question For Nunquam aliud natura aliud sapientia dicit And this the rather because there are so many ways to verifie the words of Christ without this strange and new doctrine of Transubstantiation that in vain will the words of Christ be pretended against reason whereas the words of Christ may be many ways verified if Transubstantiation be condemned as first if Picus Mirandula's proposition be true which in Rome he offered to dispute publickly that Paneitas possit suppositare corpus Domini which I suppose if it be expounded in sensible terms means that it may be bread and Christs body too or secondly if Luthers and the ancient Schoolmens way be true that Christs body be present together with the bread In that sence Christs words might be true though no Transubstantiation and this is the sence which is followed by the Greek Church 3. If Boquinus's way be true that between the bread and Christs body there were a communication of proprieties as there is between the Deity and humanity of our blessed Saviour then as we say God gave himself for us and the blessed Virgin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mother of God and God suffered and rose again meaning that God did it according to his assumed humanity so we may say this is Christs body by the communication of the Idioms or proprieties to the bread with which it is united 4. If our way be admitted that Christ is there after a real spiritual manner the words of Christ are true without any need of admitting Transubstantiation 5. I could instance in the way of Johannes Longus in his Annotations upon the second Apology of Justin Martyr Hoc est corpus meum that is My body is this that is is nourishment spiritual as this is Natural 6. The way of Johannes Caâ—panus would afford me a sixth instance Hoc est corpus meum that is meum as it is mea creatura 7. Johannes à Lasco Bucer and the Socinians refer hoc to the whole ministery and mean that to be representative of Christs body 8. If Rupertus the Abbots way were admitted which was confuted by Algerus and is almost like that of Boquinus that between Christs body and the consecrate symbols there was an hypostatical union then both substances would remain and yet it were a true proposition to affirm of the whole hypostasis this is the body of Christ. Many more I could reckon all which or any of which if it were admitted the words of Christ stand true and uncontradicted and therefore it is a huge folly to quarrel at them that admit not Transubstantiation and to say they deny the words of Christ. And therefore it must not now be said Reason is not to be heard against an Article of Faith for that this is an Article of Faith cannot nakedly be inferred from the words of Christ which are capable of so many meanings Therefore reason in this case is to be heard by them that will give a reason of their faith as it is commanded in Scripture much less is that to be admitted which Fisher or Flued the Jesuit was bold to say to King James that because Transubstantiation seems so much against reason therefore it is to be admitted as if faith were more faith for being against reason Against this for the present I shall oppose the excellent words of S. Austin
Ep. 7. Si manifestissimae certaeque rationi velut Scripturarum Sanctarum objicitur authoritas non intelligit qui hoc facit non Scripturarum illarum sensum ad quem penetrare non potuit sed suum potiùs objicit veritati nec quod in eis sed quod in seipso velut pro eis invenit opponit He that opposes the authority of the holy Scriptures against manifest and certain reason does neither understand himself nor the Scripture Indeed when God hath plainly declared the particular the more it seems against my reasons the greater is my obedience in submitting but that is because my reasons are but Sophismes since truth it self hath declared plainly against them but if God hath not plainly declared against that which I call reason my reason must not be contested by a pretence of Faith but upon some other account Ratio cum ratione concertet 3. Secondly But this is such a fine device that it can if it be admitted warrant any literal interpretation against all the pretences of the world For when Christ said If thy right eye offend thee pluck it out Here are the plain words of Christ And Some make themselves Eunuches for the kingdom of Heaven Nothing plainer in the Grammatical sence and why do we not do it because it is an unnatural thing to mangle our body for a Spiritual cause which may be supplied by other more gentle instruments Yea but reason is not to be heard against the plain words of Christ and the greater our reason is against it the greater excellency in our obedience that as Abraham against hope believed in hope so we against reason may believe in the greatest reason the Divine revelation and what can be spoken against this 4. Thirdly Stapleton confuting Luthers opinion of Consubstantiation pretends against it many absurdities drawn from reason and yet it would have been ill taken if it should have been answered that the doctrine ought the rather to be believed because it is so unreasonable which answer is something like our new Preachers who pretend that therefore they are Spiritual men because they have no learning they are to confound the wise because they are the weak things of the world and that they are to be heard the rather because there is the less reason they should so crying stinking fish that men may buy it the more greedily But I will proceed to the particulars of reason in this Article being contented with this that if the adverse party shall refuse this way of arguing they may be reproved by saying they refuse to hear reason and it will not be easie for them in despite of reason to pretend faith for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unreasonable men and they that have not faith are equivalent in S. Pauls expression 5. First I shall lay this prejudice in the Article as relating to the discourses of reason that in the words of institution there is nothing that can be pretended to prove the conversion of the substance of bread into the body of Christ but the same will infer the conversion of the whole into the whole and therefore of the accidents of the bread into the accidents of the body And in those little pretences of Philosophy which these men sometimes make to cousen fools into a belief of the possibility they pretend to no instance but to such conversions in which if the substance is changed so also are the accidents sometimes the accident is chang'd in the same remaining substance but if the substance be changed the accidents never remain the same individually or in kind unless they be symbolical that is are common to both as in the change of elements of air into fire of water into earth Thus when Christ changed water into wine the substances being chang'd the accidents also were alter'd and the wine did not retain the colour and taste of water for then though it had been the stranger miracle that wine should be wine and yet look and taste like water yet it would have obtained but little advantage to his doctrine and person if he should have offer'd to prove his mission by such a miracle For if Christ had said to the guests To prove that I am come from God I will change this water into wine well might this prove his mission but if while the guests were wondring at this he should proceed and say wonder ye not at this for I will do a stranger thing than it for this water shall be changed into wine and yet I will so order it that it shall look like water and taste like it so that you shall not know one from the other Certainly this would have made the whole matter very ridiculous and indeed it is a strange device of these men to suppose God to work so many prodigious miracles as must be in Transubstantiation if it were at all and yet that none of these should be seen for to what purpose is a miracle that cannot be perceived It can prove nothing nor do any thing when it self is not known whether it be or no. When bread is turned into flesh and wine into blood in the nourishment of our bodies which I have seen urg'd for the credibility of Transubstantiation The bread as it changes his nature changes his accidents too and is flesh in colour and shape and dimensions and weight and operation as well as it is in substance Now let them rub their foreheads hard and tell us it is so in the holy Sacrament For if it be not so then no instance of the change of Natural substances from one form to another can be pertinent For 1. Though it be no more than is done in every operation of a body yet it is always with change of their proper accidents and then 2. It can with no force of the words of the institution be pretended that one ought to be or can be without the other For he that says this is the body of a man says that it hath the substance of a humane body and all his consequents that is the accidents and he that says this is the body of Alexander says besides the substance that it hath all the individuating conditions which are the particular accidents and therefore Christ affirming this to be his body did as much affirm the change of accidents as the change of substance because that change is naturally and essentially consequent to this Now if they say they therefore do not believe the accidents of bread to be changed because they see them remain I might reply Why will they believe their sense against faith since there may be evidence but here is certainty and it cannot be deceived though our eyes can and it is certain that Christ affirmed it without distinction of one part from another of substance from his usual accidents This is my body Hoc Hîc Nunc and Sic. Now if they think their eyes may be credited for
all the words of our blessed Saviour why shall not their reason also or is it nothing so certain to the understanding as any thing is to the eye If therefore it be unreasonable to say that the accidents of bread are changed against our sense so it will be unreasonable to say that the substance is changed against our reason Not but that God can and does often change one substance into another and it is done in every natural production of a substantial form but that we say it is unreasonable that this should be changed into flesh not to flesh simply for so it is when we eat it nor into Christs flesh simply for so it might have been if he had as it is probable he did eaten the Sacrament himself But into that body of Christ which is in Heaven he remaining there and being whole and impassible and unfrangible this we say is unreasonable and impossible and that is now to be proved 6. Secondly In this question when our adversaries are to cousen any of the people they tell them the Protestants deny Gods omnipotency for so they are pleased to call our denying their dreams And this device of theirs to escape is older than their doctrine of Transubstantiation for it was the trick of the Manichees the Eutychians the Apollinarists the Arians when they were confuted by the arguments of the Catholicks to flye to Gods omnipotency 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Nazianzen and it was very usually by the Fathers called the Sanctuary of Hereticks Potentia inquiunt ei haec est ut falsa sint vera mendacis est ut falsum dicat verum quod Deo non competit saith S. Austin They pretend it to belong to Gods power to verifie their doctrine that is to make falshood truth that is not power but a lye which cannot be in God and this was older than the Arrians it was the trick of the old Tragedians So Plato told them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Cicero rendring says Cum explicare argumenti exitium non potestis confugitis ad Deum When you cannot bring your argument about you flye to the power of God But when we say this is impossible to be done either we mean it naturally or ordinarily impossible that is such a thing which cannot without a miracle be done as a child cannot with his hands break a giants arm or a man cannot eat a Milstone or with his finger touch the Moon Now in matters of Religion although to shew a thing to be thus impossible is not enough to prove it was not at all if God said it was for although to man it be impossible yet to God all things are possible yet when the question is of the sence of the words of Scripture which are capable of various interpretations he that brings an argument ab impossibili against any one interpretation shewing that it infers such an ordinary impossibility as cannot be done without a miracle hath sufficiently concluded not against the words for nothing ought to prejudice them but against such an interpretation as infers that impossibility Thus when in Scripture we find it recorded that Christ was born of a Virgin to say this is impossible is no argument against it because although it be naturally impossible which I think is demonstrable against the Arabian Physicians yet to him that said it it is also possible to do it But then if from hence any man shall obtrude as an Article of Faith that the blessed Virgin Mother was so a Virgin that her holy Son came into the world without any aperture of his mothers womb I doubt not but an argument ab impossibili is a sufficient conviction of the falshood of it though this impossibility be only an ordinary and natural because the words of Scripture affirming Christ to be born of a Virgin say only that he was not begotten by natural generation not that his egression from his Mothers womb made a Penetration of dimensions To instance once more The words of Scripture are plain That Christ is man That Christ is God Here are two natures and yet but one Christ No impossibility ought to be pretended against these plain words but they must be sophismes because they dispute against truth it self But now if a Monothelite shall say that by this unity of nature God hath taught an unity of wills in Christ and that he had but one will because he is but one person I do not doubt but an argument from an ordinary and natural impossibility will be sufficient to convince him of his heresie and in this case the Monothelite hath no reason to say that the Orthodox Christian denies Gods omnipotency and says that God cannot unite the will of Christs humanity to the will of his Divinity And this is true in every thing which is not declared minutely and in his particular sence There is ordinarily no greater argument in the world and none better is commonly used nor any better required than to reduce the opinion to an impossibility for if this be not true without a miracle you must prove your extraordinary and demonstrate your miracle which will be found to be a new impossibility A sence that cannot be true without a miracle to make it so it is a miracle if it be true and therefore let the literal sence in any place be presumed and have the advantage of the first offer or presumption yet if it be ordinarily impossible to be so and without a miracle cannot be so and the miracle no where affirmed then to affirm the literal sence is the hugest folly that can be in the interpretation of any Scriptures 7. But there is an impossibility which is absolute which God cannot do therefore because he is Almighty for to do them were impotency and want of power as God cannot lye he cannot be deceived he cannot be mock'd he cannot die he cannot deny himself nor do unjustly And I remember that Dionysius brings in by way of scorn Elymas the Sorcerer finding fault with S. Paul for saying God could not deny himself as if the saying so were denying Gods omnipotency so Elymas objected as is to be seen in the book de Divin Nom. c. 8. And by the consent of all the world it is agreed upon this expression That God cannot reconcile contradictions that is It is no part of the divine Omnipotency to make the same proposition true and false at the same time in the same respect It is absolutely impossible that the same thing should be and not be at the same time that the same thing so constituted in his own formality should lose the formality or essential affirmative and yet remain the same thing For it is absolutely the first truth that can be affirmed in Metaphysical notices Nothing can be and not be This is it in which all men and all Sciences and all religions are agreed upon as a prime truth in all sences and without distinctions For if any
own Turrecremata It remains that it must be repletivè in many places which we use to attribute to God only and it is that manner of being in a place by which God is distinguished from his creatures But now a fourth word must be invented and that is Sacramentalitèr Christs body is Sacramentally in more places than one which is very true that is the Sacrament of Christs body is and so is his body figuratively tropically representatively in being and really in effect and blessing But this is not a natural real being in a place but a relation to a person the other three are all the manners of location which the soul of Man could yet ever apprehend 18. Fifthly It is essential to a body to have partem extra partem one part without the other answering to the parts of his place for so the eyes stand separate from the hands and the ears from the feet and the head from the belly But in Transubstantiation the whole body is in a point in a minimum naturale in the least imaginable crumb of consecrated bread how then shall nose and eyes and head and hands be distinct unless the mutiny of the members be reconciled and all parties pleased because the feet shall be the eyes and the leg shall be the head and possess each others dimension and proper cells of dwelling Quod ego non credo said an ancient Gloss. I will not insist upon the unworthy questions which this carnal doctrine introduces viz. Whether Christs whole body be so there that the prepuce is not wanting Suarez supposing that as probable others denying it but disputing it fiercely Neither will I make scrutiny concerning eating Christs bones guts hair and nails nor suppose the Roman Priests to be such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to have such saws in their mouths these are appendages of their perswasion but to be abominated by all Christian and modest persons who use to eat not the bodies but the flesh of beasts and not to devour but to worship the body of Christ in the exaltation and more in the union with his Divinity But that which I now insist upon is that in a body there cannot be indistinction of parts but each must possess his own portion of place and if it does not a body cannot be a body nor distinguished from a Spirit 19. Sixthly When a body broken into half one half is separate from another and remains divided But in the doctrine of Transubstantiation the wafer which they say is Christs whole body if it be broken is broken into two whole ones not into the halfs of one and so there shall be two bodies if each half make one and yet those two bodies are but one and not two Adde to this if each wafer be Christ's body whole and the fraction of it makes that every part is whole Christ then every communicant can consecrate as well as the Priest for at his breaking the host in his mouth why the body should not also become whole to each part in the mouth as well as to each part in the hand is one of the unintelligible secrets of this mystery 20. Aquinas says that The body of Christ is not in the Sacrament in the manner of a body but of a substance and so is whole in the whole Well suppose that for a while yet 1. Those substances which are whole in the whole are by his own doctrine neither divisible nor multiplicable and how then can Christs body be supposed to be multiplicable for there are no other words to express my meaning though no words can speak sence according to their doctrine words not signifying here as every where else and among them as they did always in all mankind how can it I say be multiplied by the breaking of the wafer or bread upon the account of the likeness of it to a substance that cannot be broken or if it could yet were not multipliable But 2. If Christs body be there according to the manner of a substance not of a body I demand according to the nature of what substance whether of a material or an immaterial If according to the nature of a material substance then it is commensurate by the dimensions of quantity which he is now endeavouring to avoid If according to the nature of an immaterial substance then it is not a body but a Spirit or else the body may have the being of a Spirit whilest it remains a body that is be a body and not a body at the same time But 3. To say that a body is there not according to the nature of a body but of a substance is not sence for besides that by this answer it is a body without the nature of a body it says that it is also there determin'd by a manner and yet that manner is so far from determining it that it makes it yet more undetermin'd and general than it was For Substance is the highest Genus in that Category and corpus or body is under it and made more special by a superadded difference To say therefore that a body is there after the manner of a substance is to say that by being specificated limited and determin'd it becomes not a Species but a Genus that is more unlimited by limitations more generical by his specification more universal by being made more particular For impossible is it for wise men to make sence of this business 3. But besides all this to be in a place after the manner of a substance is not to be in a place at all for substantia hath in it no relation to a place till it be specificated to a Body or a Spirit For substantia dicit solùm formalitatem substandi accidentibus subsistendi per se but the capacity of or relation to a place is by the specification of it by some substantial difference 4. Lastly to explicate the being in a place in the manner of a substance by being whole in the whole and whole in every part is to say that every substance is so which is notoriously false for corporal substances are not so whether spiritual be is a question not proper for this place 21. Aquinas hath yet another device to make all whole saying that one body cannot be in diverse places localitèr but Sacramentalitèr not locally but Sacramentally But first I wish the words were sence and that I could tell the meaning of being in a place locally and not locally unless a thing can be in a place and not in a place that is so to be in that it is also out But so long as it is a distinction it is no matter it will amuse and make way to escape if it will do nothing else But if by being Sacramentally in many places is meant figuratively as before I explicated it then I grant Aquinas's affirmative Christs body is in many places Sacramentally that is it is represented upon all the holy Tables or
against the Article it self although they are most easily answered yet as they bring them against the minutiae and impertinences of the School they are not so easily to be avoided But 4. There is not the same reason because concerning God we know but very few things and concerning the mysterious Trinity that which is revealed is extremely little and it is general without descending to particulars and the difficulty of the seeming arguments against that being taken from our Philosophy and the common manner of speaking cannot be apportion'd and fitted to so great a secret neither can that at all be measur'd by any thing here below But I hope we may have leave to say we understand more concerning bodies and their nature than concerning the persons of the holy Trinity and therefore we may be sure in the matter of bodies to know what is and what is not possible when we can know no measure of truth or error in all the mysteriousnesses of so high and separate superexalted secrets as is that of the holy Trinity 5. Because when the Church for the understanding of this secret of the holy Trinity hath taken words from Metaphysical learning as person hypostasis consubstantiality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such like the words of themselves were apt to change their signification and to put on the sence of the present School But the Church was forc'd to use such words as she had the highest the nearest the most separate and mysterious But when she still kept these words to the same mystery the words swell'd or alter'd in their sence and were exacted according to what they did signifie amongst men in their low notices this begat difficulty in the doctrine of the holy Trinity For better words she had none and all that which they did signifie in our Philosophy could not be applied to this mystery and therefore we have found difficulty and shall for ever till in this Article the Church returns to her ancient simplicity of expression For these reasons I conceive the case is wholly different and the difficulty and secret of one mystery which is certainly revealed cannot warrant us to admit the impossibilities of that which is not revealed Let it appear that God hath affirm'd Transubstantiation and I for my part will burn all my arguments against it and make publick amends The like also is to be said in the matter of Incarnation 29. But if two bodies may be in one place then one body may be in two places Aquinas denies the consequent of this argument but I for my part am careless whether it be true or no. But I shall oppose against it this If two bodies cannot be in one commensurate place then one body cannot be in two places Now concerning this it is certain it implies a contradiction that two bodies should be in one place or possess the place of another till that be cast forth Quod nisi inania sint quâ possent corpora quaeque Transire hand ullâ fieri ratione videres And the great dispute between the Scholars of Epicurus and the Peripateticks concerning vacuity was wholly upon this account Epicurus saying there could be no motion unless the place were empty All the other Sects saying that it was enough that it was made empty by the coming of the new body all agreeing that two bodies could not be together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All agreed that two bodies could not be together and that the first body must be thrust forth by the intromission of the second Quae si non esset inane Non tam sollicito motu privata carerent Quà m genita omninò nulla ratione fuissent Vndique materies quoniam stipata quiescet For the contrary says that two bodies are one For the proper dimensions of a quantitative body are length breadth and thickness Now the extension of the body in these dimensions is measured by the place For the place is nothing else but the measuring and limiting of the thing so measured and limited by these measures and limitations of length breadth and thickness Now if two bodies could be in one place then they must both have one superficies one length one thickness and then either the other hath none or they are but one body and not two or else though they be two bodies and have two superficies yet these two superficies are but one all which are contradictions Bellarmine says that to be coextended to a place is separable from a magnitude or body because it is a thing that is extrinsecal and consequent to the intrinsecal extension of parts and being later than it is by Divine power separable But this is as very a sophisme as all the rest For if what ever in nature i◠later than the substance be separable from it then fire may be without heat or water without moisture a man can be without time for that also is in nature after his essence and he may be without a faculty of will or understanding or of affections or of growing to his state or being nourished and then he will be a strange man who will neither have the power of will or understanding of desiring or avoiding of nourishment or growth or any thing that can distinguish him from a beast or a tree or a stone For these are all later than the essence for they are essential emanations from it Thus also quantity can be separated from a substantial body if every thing that is later than the form can be separated from it And therefore nothing of this can be avoided by saying to fill a place is an act but these other instances are faculties and powers and therefore the act may better be impeded by Divine power the thing remaining the same than by the ablation of faculties This I say cannot justifie the trick 1. Because to be extended into parts is as much an act as to be in a place and yet that is inseparable from magnitude and so confessed by Bellarmine 2. To be in a place is not an act at all any more than to be created to be finite to be limited and it was never yet heard of that esse locatum or esse in loco was reducible to the predicament of action 3. An act is no more separable than a faculty is when the act is as essential as the faculty now for a body to be in a place is as essential to a body as it is for a man to have understanding for this is confessed to be separable by Divine power and the other cannot be more it cannot be naturally 4. If to be in a place be an act it is no otherwise an act than it is an act for a Father actually to have a son and therefore is no more separable this than that and you may as well suppose a Father and no child as a body and no place 5. It is a false proposition to say that place is
to have been the established resolved doctrine of the Primitive Church this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not necessary Because although no argument can prove it Catholick but a consent yet if some as learned as holy as orthodox do dissent it is enough to prove it not to be Catholick As a proposition is not universal if there be one or three or ten exceptions but to make it universal it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must take in all 2. Secondly None of the Fathers speak words exclusive of our way because our way contains a Spiritual sence which to be true our adversaries deny not but say it is not sufficient but there ought to be more But their words do often exclude the way of the Church of Rome and are not so capable of an answer for them 3. Thirdly When the saying of a Father is brought out of which his sence is to be drawn by argument and discourse by two or three remote uneasie consequences I do not think it fit to take notice of those words either for or against us because then his meaning is as obscure as the article it self and therefore he is not fit to be brought in interpretation of it And the same also is the case when the words are brought by both sides for then it is a shrewd sign the Doctor is not well to be understood or that he is not fit in those words to be an umpire and of this Cardinal Perron is a great example who spends a volume in folio to prove S. Austin to be of their side in this article or rather not to be against them 4. Fourthly All those testimonies of Fathers which are as general indefinite and unexpounded as the words of Scripture which are in question must in this question pass for nothing and therefore when the Fathers say that in the sacrament is the body and blood of Christ that there is the body of our Lord that before consecration it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meer bread but after consecration it is verily the body of Christ truly his flesh truly his blood these and the like sayings are no more than the words of Christ This is my body and are only true in the same sence of which I have all this while been giving an account that is by a change of condition of sanctification and usage We believe that after consecration and blessing it is really Christs body which is verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lords Supper And upon this account we shall find that many very many of the authorities of the Fathers commonly alledged by the Roman Doctors in this question will come to nothing For we speak their sence and in their own words the Church of England expressing this mystery frequently in the same forms of words and we are so certain that to eat Christs body Spiritually is to eat him really that there is no other way for him to be eaten really than by Spiritual manducation 5. Fifthly when the Fathers in this question speak of the change of the Symbols in the holy Sacrament they sometimes use the words of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Church conversion mutation transition migration transfiguration and the like in the Latin but they by these do understand accidental and Sacramental conversions not proper natural and substantial Concerning which although I might refer the Reader to see it highly verified in David Blondels familiar elucidations of the Eucharistical controversie yet a shorter course I can take to warrant it without my trouble or his and that is by the confession of a Jesuit and of no mean same or learning amongst them The words of Suarez whom I mean are these Licet antiqui Pp. c. Although the ancient Fathers have used divers names yet all they are either general as the names of conversion mutation transition or else they are more accommodated to an accidental change as the name of Transfiguration and the like only the name of Transelementation which Theophylact did use seems to approach nearer to signify the propriety of this mystery because it signifies a change even of the first elements yet that word is harder and not sufficiently accommodate For it may signify the resolution of one element into another or the resolution of a mixt body into the elements He might have added another sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Transelementation For Theophylact uses the same word to express the change of our bodies to the state of incorruption and the change that is made in the faithful when they are united unto Christ. But Suarez proceeds But Transubstantiation does most properly and appositely signifie the passage and conversion of the whole substance into the whole substance So that by this discourse we are quitted and made free from the pressure of all those authorities of the Fathers which speak of the mutation conversion transition or passage or transelementation transfiguration and the like of the bread into the body of Christ these do or may only signifie an accidental change and come not home to their purpose of Transubstantiation and it is as if Suarez had said the words which the Fathers use in this question make not for us and therefore we have made a new word for our selves and obtruded it upon all the world But against it I shall only object an observation of Bellarmine that is not ill The liberty of new words is dangerous in the Church because out of new words by little and little new things arise while it is lawful to coyn new words in divine affairs 6. Sixthly To which I add this that if all the Fathers had more unitedly affirmed the conversion of the bread into Christs body than they have done and had not explicated their meaning as they have done indeed yet this word would so little have help'd the Roman cause that it would directly have overthrown it For in their Transubstantiation there is no conversion of one thing into another but a local succession of Christs body into the place of bread A change of the Vbi was not used to be called a substantial conversion But they understood nothing of our present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were not used to such curious nothings and intricate falshoods and artificial nonsence with which the Roman Doctors troubled the world in this question But they spake wholly another thing and either they did affirm a substantial change or they did not If they did not then it makes nothing for them or against us But if they did mean a proper substantial change then for so much as it comes to it makes against us but not for them for they must mean a change of one substance into another by conversion or a change of substances by substitution of one in the place of another If they meant the latter then it was no conversion of one into another and then they expressed not what they meant
for conversion which was their word could signifie nothing of that But if they meant the change of substance into substance properly by conversion then they have confuted the present doctrine of Transubstantiation which though they call a substantial change yet an accident is the terminus mutationis that is it is by their explication of it wholly an accidental change as I have before discoursed for nothing is produced but Vbiquity or Presentiality that is it is only made present where it was not before And it is to be observed that there is a vast difference between Conversion and Transubstantiation the first is not denied meaning by it a change of use of condition of sanctification as a Table is changed into an Altar a House into a Church a Man into a Priest Matthias into an Apostle the Water of the River into the Laver of Regeneration But this is not any thing of Transubstantiation For in this new device there are three strange affirmatives of which the Fathers never dream'd 1. That the natural being of bread is wholly ceased and is not at all neither the matter nor the form 2. That the accidents of bread and wine remain without a subject their proper subject being annihilated and they not subjected in the holy body 3. That the body of Christ is brought into the place of the bread which is not chang'd into it but is succeeded by it These are the constituent propositions of Transubstantiation without the proof of which all the affirmations of conversion signifie nothing to their purpose or against ours 7. Seventhly When the Fathers use the word Nature in this question sometimes saying the Nature is changed sometimes that the Nature remains it is evident that they either contradicted each other or that the word Nature hath amongst them diverse significations Now in order to this I suppose if men will be determined by the reasonableness of the things themselves and the usual manners of speech and not by prejudices and prepossessions it will be evident that when they speak of the change of Nature saying that bread changes his nature it may be understood of an accidental change for that the word Nature is used for a change of accidents is by the Roman Doctors contended for when it is to serve their turns particularly in their answer to the words of Pope Gelasius and it is evident in the thing for we say a man of a good nature that is of a loving disposition It is natural to me to love or hate this or that and it is against my nature that is my custome or my affection But then as it may signifie accidents and a Natural change may yet be accidental as when water is chang'd into ice wine into vinegar yet it is also certain that Nature may mean substance and if it can by the analogie of the place or the circumstances of speech or by any thing be declared when it is that they mean a substance by using the word nature it must be certain that then substance is meant when the word nature is used distinctly from and in opposition to accidents or when it is explicated by and in conjunction with substance which observation is reducible to practice in the following testimonies of Theodoret Gelasius and others Immortalitatem dedit naturam non abstulit says S. Austin 8. Eighthly So also Whatsoever words are used by the ancient Doctors seemingly affirmative of a substantial change cannot serve their interest that now most desire it because themselves being pressed with the words of Natura and Substantia against them answer that the Fathers using these words mean them not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not naturally but Theologically that is as I suppose not properly but Sacramentally by the same account when they speak of the change of the bread into the substance of Christs body they may mean the change of substance not naturally but sacramentally so that this ought to invalidate the greatest testimony which can be alledged by them because themselves have taken from the words that sence which only must have done them advantage for if Substantia and Natura always mean naturally then their sentence is oftentimes positively condemned by the Fathers if this may mean Sacramentally then they can never without a just answer pretend from their words to prove a Natural Substantial change 9. Ninthly But that the words of the Fathers in their most hyperbolical expressions ought to be expounded Sacramentally and Mystically we have sufficient warrant from themselves affirming frequently that the name of the thing signified is given to the sign S. Cyprian affirms ut significantia significata eisdem vocabulis censeantur the same words represent the sign and the thing signified The same is affirmed by S. Austin in his Epistle ad Bonifacium Now upon this declaration of themselves and of Scripture whatsoever attributes either of them give to bread after consecration we are by themselves warranted against the force of the words by a metaphorical sence for if they call the sign by the name of the thing signified and the thing intended is called by the name of a figure and the figure by the name of the thing then no affirmative of the Fathers can conclude against them that have reason to believe the sence of the words of institution to be figurative for their answer is ready the Fathers and the Scriptures too call the figure by the name of the thing figurated the bread by the name of flesh or the body of Christ which it figures and represents 10. Tenthly The Fathers in their alledged testimonies speak more than is allowed to be literally and properly true by either side and therefore declare and force an understanding of their words different from the Roman pretension Such are the words of S. Chrysostom Thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him and thy tongue is made bloody by this admirable blood thy teeth are fastned in his flesh thy teeth are made red with his blood and the Author of the book de coenâ Domini attributed to S. Cyprian Cruci haeremus c. We stick close to the cross we suck his blood and fasten our tongue between the very wounds of our Redeemer and under his head may be reduced very many other testimonies now how far these go beyond the just positive limit it will be in the power of any man to say and to take into this account as many as he please even all that go beyond his own sence and opinion without all possibility of being confuted 11. Eleventhly In vain will it be for any of the Roman Doctors to alledge the words of the Fathers proving the conversion of bread into Christs body or flesh and of the wine into his blood since they say the same thing of us that we also are turned into Christs flesh and body and blood So S. Chrysostom He reduces us into the same mass
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
the body of Christ. And yet these men would make us believe that all the world 's their own But Scotus does directly deny the doctrine of Conversion or Transubstantiation to be ancient so says Henriquez Ante Concilium Lateranense Transubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei So said Scotus himself as Bellarmine cites him and some of the Fathers of the Society in England in their prison affirm'd Rem Transubstantiationis Patres ne attigisse quidem That the Fathers did not so much as touch the matter of Transubstantiation and it was likely so because Peter Lombard whose design it was to collect the sentences of the Fathers into heads of articles found in them so nothing to the purpose of Transubstantiation that he professed he was not able to define whether the conversion of the Eucharistical bread were formal or substantial or of another kind To some it seems to be substantial saying the substance is changed into the substance Quibusdam videtur it seems and that not to all neither but to some for his part he knows not whether they are right or wrong therefore in his days the doctrine was not Catholick And me thinks it was an odd saying of Vasquez and much to this purpose that as soon as ever the later Schoolmen heard the name of Transubstantiation such a controversie did arise concerning the nature of it he says not of the meaning of the word but the nature of the thing that by how much the more they did endeavour to extricate themselves by so much the more they were intangled in difficulties It seems it was news to them to hear talk of it and they were as much strangers to the nature of it as to the name it begat quarrels and became a riddle which they could not resolve but like Achelous his horn sent forth a river of more difficulty to be waded thorough than the horn was to be broken And amongst these Schoolmen Durandus maintained an heretical opinion says Bellarmine saying that the form of bread was changed into Christs body but that the matter of bread remained still by which also it is apparent that then this doctrine was but in the forge it was once stamped upon at the Lateran Council but the form was rude and it was fain to be cast again and polished at Trent the Jesuit order being the chief masters of the mint But now I proceed to the trial of this Topick 17. I shall not need to arrest the Reader with consideration of the pretension made by the Roman Doctors out of the passions of the Apostles which all men condemn for spurious and Apocryphal particularly the passion of S. Andrew said to be written by the Priests and Deacons of Achaia For it is sufficient that they are so esteemed by Baronius censured for such by Gelasius by Philastrius and Innocentius they were corrupted also by the Manichees by additions and detractions and yet if they were genuine and uncorrupted they say nothing but what we profess Although the holy Lamb truly sacrificed and his flesh eaten by the people doth nevertheless persevere whole and alive for no man that I know of pretends that Christ is so eaten in the Sacrament that he dies for it for his flesh is eaten spiritually and by faith and that is the most true manducation of Christs body the flesh of the holy Lamb and this manducation breaks not a bone of him but then how he can be torn by the teeth of the communicants and yet remain whole is a harder matter to tell and therefore these words are very far from their sence they are nearer to an objection But I shall not be troubled with this any more save that I shall observe that one White of the Roman perswasion quoting part of these words which Bellarmine and from him the under-writers object Ego omnipotenti Deo omni die immaculatum agnum sacrifico of these words in particular affirms that without all controversie they are apocryphal 18. Next to him is S. Ignatius who is cited to have said something of this question in his epistle ad Smyrnenses speaking of certain hereticks They do not admit of Eucharists and oblations because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour which flesh suffered for us They that do not confess it let them be anathema for sure it is as sure as Christ is true but quomodo is the question and of this S. Ignatius says nothing But the understanding of these words perfectly depends upon the story of that time Concerning which we learn out of Tertullian and Irenaeus that the Marcosians the Valentinians and Marcionites who denied the Incarnation of the son of God did nevertheless use the Eucharistical Symbols though I say they denied Christ to have a body Now because this usage of theirs did confute their grand heresie for to what purpose should they celebrate the Sacrament of Christs body if he had none therefore it is that S. Ignatius might say They did not admit the Eucharist because they did not confess it to be the flesh of Christ for though in practice they did admit it yet in theory they denyed it because it could be nothing as they handled the matter For how could it be Christs flesh Sacramentally if he had no flesh really And therefore they did not admit the Eucharist as the Church did for in no sence would they grant it to be the flesh of Christ not the figure not the Sacrament of it lest admitting the figure they should also confess the substance But besides if these words had been against us it had signified nothing because these words are not in S. Ignatius they are in no Greek Copy of him but they are reported by Theodoret. But in these there is nothing else material than what I have accounted for I only took them in by the bie because they are great names and are objected sometimes But I shall descend to more material testimonies and consider those objections that are incident to the mention of the several Fathers supposing that the others are invalid upon the account of the premises or if they were not yet they can but pass for single opinions against which themselves and others are opposed at other times 19. Tertullian is affirmative in that sence of the article which we teach Acceptum panem distributum discipulis suis Christus corpus suum meum fecit dicendo Hoc est corpus i. e. figura corporis mei He proves against the Marcionites that Christ had a true real body in his incarnation by this argument because in the Sacrament he gave bread as the figure of his body saying This is my body that is the figure of my body Fisher in his answer to the ninth question propounded by K. James and he from Card. Perron say it is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and answers to this place that Figura corporis mei refers after Tertullians odd
manner of speaking to Hoc not to corpus meum which are the words immediately preceding and so most proper for the relation and that the sence is This figure of my body is my body that is this which was a figure in the Old Testament is now a substance To this I reply 1. It must mean this which is present is my body not this figure of my body which was in the Old Testament but this which we mean in the words of consecration and then it is no hyperbaton which is to be supplied with quod erat This which was for the nature of a hyperbaton is to make all right by a meer transposition of the words as Christus mortuus est i. e. unctus place unctus before mortuus and the sentence is perfect but it is not so here without the addition of two words it cannot be and if two words may be added we may make what sence we please But 2. suppose that figura corporis does refer to Hoc yet it is to be remembred that Hoc in that place is one of the words of the institution or consecration and then it can have no sence to evacuate the pressure of his words 3. Suppose this reference of the words to be intended then the sence will be This figure of my body is my body the consequent of which is that which we contend for that the same which is called his body is the figure of his body the one is the subject the other the predicate and then it affirms all that is pleaded for as if we say Haec effigies est homo we mean it is the effigies of a man and so in this This figure of my body is my body by the rule of denominatives signifies This is the figure of my body 4. In the preceding words Tertullian says the Pascha was the type of his passion this Pascha he desired to eat This Pascha was not the lamb for he was betrayed the night before it was to be eaten professus se concupisâ—entiâ concupisse edere Pascha ut suum indignum enim ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus he would eat the Passeover of his own figuram sanguinis sui salutaris implere concupiscebat he desir'd to fulfil the figure that is to produce the last of all the figures of his healing blood Now this was by eating the Paschal Lamb that is himself for the other was not to be eaten that night Now then if the eating or delivering himself to be eaten that night was implere figuram sanguinis sui he then did fulfil the figure of his blood therefore figura corporis mei in the following words must relate to what he did that night that therefore was the figure but the more excellent because the nearest to the substance which was given really the next day this therefore as S. Gregory Nazianzen affirms was the most excellent figure the Paschal lamb it self being figura figurae the figure of a figure as I have quoted him in the sequel And it is not disagreeing from the expression of Scripture saying that the law had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a shadow but not the very image that was in the ceremonies of the law this in the Sacraments of the Gospel Christ himself was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing it self but the image was more than the shadow though less than the substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the word by which the Fathers expressed this nearer configuration 5. Whereas it is added it had not been a figure nisi veritatis esset corpus to my sence clears the question for therefore Christs body which he was cloathed withall was a true body else this could not be a figure of it But therefore this which was also a figure could not be the true body of which it was a figure 6. That which Fisher adds that Tertullians drift was to shew that whereas in the old Testament bread was the figure of the body of Christ as appears by the words of the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem ejus i. e. crucem in corpus ejus Christ in the new Testament made this figure really to be his body This I conceive to make very much against Tertullians design For he proves that therefore Christ might well call bread his body that was no new thing for it was so also in the old figure and therefore may be so now But that this was no more than a figure he adds If therefore he made bread to be his body because he wanted a true body then bread was delivered for us and it would advance the vanity of Marcion that bread was crucified No this could not be but therefore he must mean that as of old in the Prophet and in the Passeover so now in the last supper he gave the same figure and therefore that which was figured was real viz. his crucified body Now suppose we should frame this argument out of Tertullians medium and suppose it to be made by Marcion The body of Christ was delivered for the sins of the world c. you Catholicks say that bread is the body of Christ therefore you say that bread was delivered for the sins of the whole world and that bread was crucified for you and that bread is the son of God what answer could be made to this out of Tertullian but by expounding the minor proposition figuratively We Catholicks say that the Eucharistical bread is the body of Christ in a figurative sence it is completio or consummatio figurarum the last and most excellent of all figures But if he should have said according to the Roman fancy that it is the natural body of Christ it would have made rare triumphs in the Schools of Marcion But that there may be no doubt in this particular hear himself summing up his own discourses in this question Proinde panis calicis Sacramento jam in Evangelio probavimus corporis sanguinis Dominici veritatem adversùs phantasma Marcionis Against the phantasm of Marcion we have proved the verity of Christs body and blood by the Sacrament of bread and wine 7. This very answer I find to be Tertullians own explication of this affair for speaking of the same figurative speech of the Prophet Jeremy and why bread should be called his body he gives this account Hoc lignum Jeremias tibi insinuat dicturis praedicans Judaeis Venite mittamus lignum in panem ejus utique in corpus sic enim Deus in Evangelio quoque vestro revelavit panem corpus suum appellans ut hinc jam eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse cujus retro corpus in panem prophetis figuravit ipso domino hoc Sacramentum postea interpretaturo For so God revealed in your Gospel calling bread his body that hence thou mayest understand that he gave to bread the figure of his body whose body anciently the Prophet figured by bread afterwards the Lord himself
expounding the Sacrament Nothing needs to be plainer By the way let me observe this that the words cited by Tertullian out of Jeremy are expounded and recited too but by allusion For there are no such words in the Hebrew Text which is thus to be rendred Corrumpanus veneno cibum ejus and so cannot be referred to the Sacrament unless you will suppose that he fore-signified the poysoning the Emperour by a consecrated wafer But as to the figure this is often said by him for in the first book against Marcion he hath these words again nec reprobavit panem quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat etiam in Sacramentis propriis egens mendicitatibus creatoris He refused not bread by which he represents his own body wanting or using in the Sacraments the meanest things of the Creator For it is not to be imagined that Tertullian should attempt to perswade Marcion that the bread was really and properly Christs body but that he really delivered his body on the Cross that both in the old Testament and here himself gave a figure of it in bread and wine for that was it which the Marcionites denied saying on the cross no real humanity did suffer and he confutes them by saying these are figures and therefore denote a truth 8. However these men are resolved that this new answer shall please them and serve their turn yet some of their fellows great Clerks as themselves did shrink under the pressure of it as not being able to be pleased with so laboured and improbable an answer For Harding against Juel hath these words speaking of this place which interpretation is not according to the true sence of Christs words although his meaning swerve not from the truth And B. Rhenanus the author of the admonition to the Reader De quibusdam Tertulliani dogmat◠seems to confess this to be Tertullians error Error putantium corpus Christi in Eucharistiâ tantùm esse sub figurâ jam olim condemnatus The error of them that think the body of Christ is in the Eucharist only in a figure is now long since condemned But Garetius Bellarmine Justinian Coton Fevardentius Valentia and Vasquez in the recitation of this passage of Tertullian very fairly leave out the words that pinch them and which clears the article and bring the former words for themselves without the interpretation of id est figura corporis mei I may therefore without scruple reckon Tertullian on our side against whose plain words no real exception can lye himself expounding his own meaning in the pursuance of the figurative sence of this mystery 20. Concerning Origen I have already given an account in the ninth Paragraph and other places casually and made it appear that he is a direct opposite to the doctrine of Transubstantiation And the same also of Justin Martyr Paragraph the fifth number 9. Where also I have enumerated divers others who speak upon parts of this question on which the whole depends whither I refer the Reader Only concerning Justin Martyr I shall recite these words of his against Tryphon Figura fuit panis Eucharistiae quem in recordationem passionis facere praecepit The bread of the Eucharist was a figure which Christ the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his passion 21. Clemens Alexandrinus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The blood of Christ is twofold the one is carnal by which we are redeemed from death the other spiritual viz. by which we are anointed And this is to drink the blood of Jesus to be partakers of the incorruption of our Lord. But the power of the word is the Spirit as blood is of the flesh Therefore in a moderated proposition and convenience wine is mingled with water as the Spirit with a man And he receives in the Feast viz. Eucharistical tempered wine unto faith But the Spirit leadeth to incorruption but the mixture of both viz. of drink and the word is called the Eucharist which is praised and is a good gift or grace of which they who are partakers by faith are sanctified in body and soul. Here plainly he calls that which is in the Eucharist Spiritual blood and without repeating the whole discourse is easie and clear And that you may be certain of S. Clement his meaning he disputes in the same chapter against the Encratites who thought it not lawful to drink wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For be ye sure he also did drink wine for he also was a man and he blessed wine when he said Take drink 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my blood the blood of the vine for that word that was shed for many for the remission of sins it signifies allegorically a holy stream of gladness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that the thing which had been blessed was wine he shewed again saying to his disciples I will not drink of the fruit of this vine till I drink it new with you in my fathers kingdom Now S. Clement proving by Christs sumption of the Eucharist that he did drink wine must mean the Sacramental Symbol to be truly wine and Christs blood allegorically that holy stream of gladness or else he had not concluded by that argument against the Encratites Upon which account these words are much to be valued because by our doctrine in this article he only could confute the Encratites as by the same doctrine explicated as we explicate it Tertullian confuted the Marcionites and Theodoret and Gelasius confuted the Nestorians and Eutychians if the doctrine of Transubstantiation had been true these four heresies had by them as to their particular arguments relating to this matter been unconfuted 22. S. Cyprian in his Tractate de unctione which Canisius Harding Bellarmine and Lindan cite hath these words Dedit itaque Dominus noster c. Therefore our Lord in his table in which he did partake his last banquet with his disciples with his own hands gave bread and wine but on the cross he gave to the souldiers his body to be wounded that in the Apostles the sincere truth and the true sincerity being more secretly imprinted he might expound to the Gentiles how wine and bread should be his flesh and blood and by what reasons causes might agree with effects and diverse names and kinds viz. bread and wine might be reduced to one essence and the signifying and the signified might be reckoned by the same words and in his third Epistle he hath these words Vinum quo Christi sanguis ostenditur wine by which Christs blood is showen or declared Here I might cry out as Bellarmine upon a much slighter ground Quid clariùs dici potuit But I forbear being content to enjoy the real benefits of these words without a triumph But I will use it thus far that it shall outweigh the words cited out of the tract de coenâ Domini by Bellarmine by the Rhemists by the Roman Catechism by Perron
figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi Make this ascribed oblation reasonable and acceptable which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. And again Mira potentia c. it is a wonderful power of God which makes that the bread should remain what it is and yet be changed into another thing And again How much more operative is the word of Christ that the things be what they were and yet be changed into another and so that which was bread before consecration now is the body of Christ Hoc tamen impossibile est ut panis sit corpus Christi Sed haec verba ad sanum intellectum sunt intelligenda ita solvit Hugo saith the Gloss in Gratian which is an open defiance of the doctrine of S. Ambrose affirming it to be impossible But because these words pinch severely they have retrenched the decisive words and leave out sint and make them to run thus that the things be changed into another which corruption is discovered by the citation of these words in Paschasius Guitmond Bertram Algerus Ivo Carnotensis Gratian and Lombard But in another place he calls the mystical chalice the type of the blood and that Christ is offered here in imagine in type image or representation in coelo in veritate the truth the substance is in heaven And again This therefore truly is the Sacrament of his flesh Our Lord Jesus himself says this is my body Before the blessing by the words it was named another species or kind after the consecration the body of Christ is signified 27. S. Chrysostome is brought on both sides and his Rhetorick hath cast him on the Roman side but it also bears him beyond it and his divinity and sober opinions have fixt him on ours How to answer the expressions hyperbolical which he often uses is easie by the use of rhetorick and customs of the words But I know not how any man can sensibly answer these words For as before the bread is sanctified we name it bread but the Divine grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is freed from the name of bread but it is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords body although the nature of bread remains in it To the same purpose are those words on the Twenty second Psalm published amongst his works though possibly they were of some other of that time or before or after it matters not to us but much to them for if he be later and yet esteemed a Catholick as it is certain he was and the man a-while supposed to be S. Chrysostome it is the greater evidence that it was long before the Church received their doctrine The words are these That table he hath prepared to his servants and his maidens in their sight that he might every day shew us in the Sacrament according to the order of Melchisedeck bread and wine to the likeness of the body and blood of Christ. To the same purpose is that saying in the Homilies of whoever is the Author of that opus imperfectum upon S. Mat. Si igitur haec vasa c. If therefore these vessels being sanctified it be so dangerous to transfer them to private uses in which the body of Christ is not but the mystery of his body is contained how much more concerning the vessels of our bodies c. Now against these testimonies they make an out-cry that they are not S. Chrysostoms works and for this last the book is corrupted and they think in this place by some one of Berengarius's scholars for they cannot tell Fain they would believe it but this kind of talk is a resolution not to yield but to proceed against all evidence for that this place is not corrupted but was originally the sence of the Author of the Homilies is highly credible by the faith of all the old MS. and there is in the publick Library of Oxford an excellent MS. very ancient that makes faith in this particular but that some one of their scholars might have left these words out of some of their copies were no great wonder though I do not find they did but that they foisted in a marginal note affirming that these words are not in all old copies an affirmation very confident but as the case stands to very little purpose But upon this account nothing can be proved from sayings of Fathers For either they are not their own works but made by another or 2. They are capable of another sence or 3. The places are corrupted by Hereticks or 4. It is not in some old copies which pretences I am content to let alone if they upon this account will but transact the question wholly by Scripture and common sence 5. It matters not at all what he is so he was not esteemed an Heretick and that he was not it is certain since by themselves these books are put among the works of S. Chrysostom and themselves can quote them when they seem to do them service All that I infer from hence is this that whensoever these books were writ some man esteemed a good Catholick was not of the Roman perswasion in the matter of the Sacrament therefore their opinion is not Catholick But that S. Chrysostom may not be drawn from his right of giving testimony and interpretation of his words in other places in his 23 Homily upon the first of the Corinthians which are undoubtedly his own he saith As thou eatest the body of the Lord so they viz. the faithful in the old Testament did eat Manna as thou drinkest blood so they the water of the rock For though the things which are made be sensible yet they are given spiritually not according to the consequence of nature but according to the grace of a gift and with the body they also nourish the soul leading unto faith 28. The next I produce for evidence in this case is S. Austin concerning whom it is so evident that he was a Protestant in this Article that truly it is a strange boldness to deny it and upon equal terms no mans mind in the world can be known for if all that he says in this question shall be reconcilable to Transubstantiation I know no reason but it may be possible but a witty man may pretend when I am dead that in this discourse I have pleaded for the doctrine of the Roman Church I will set his words down nakedly without any Gloss upon them and let them do by themselves as much as they can Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem c. For if the Sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they were no Sacraments at all But from this similitude for the most part they receive the things themselves As therefore according to a certain manner the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the Sacrament of the blood of
Christ is the blood of Christ so the Sacrament of faith is Now suppose a stranger to the tricks of the Roman Doctors a wise and a discerning man should read these words in S. Austin and weigh them diligently and compare them with all the adjacent words and circumstances of the place I would desire reasonably to be answered on which side he would conclude S. Austin to be if in any other place he speaks words contrary that is his fault or forgetfulness but if the contrary had been the doctrine of the Church he could never have so forgotten his Religion and Communion as so openly to have declared a contrary sence to the same Article Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis c. You are not to eat this body which you see so he brings in Christ speaking to his disciples or to drink that blood which my crucifiers shall pour forth I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you and Christ brought them to a banquet in which he commended to his disciples the figure of his body and blood * For he did not doubt to say This is my body when he gave the sign of his body * Quod ab omnibus sacrificium appellatur c. That which by all men is called a sacrifice is the sign of the true sacrifice in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrances But concerning S. Austins doctrine I shall refer him that desires to be further satisfied to no other record than their own Canon Law Which not only from S. Austin but from divers others produces testimonies so many so pertinent so full for our doctrine and against the dream of Transubstantiation that it is to me a wonder why it is not clapped into the Indices expurgatorii for it speaks very many truths beyond the cure of their Glosses which they have changed and altered several times But that this matter concerning S. Austin may be yet clearer his own third book de doctrinâ Christianâ is so plain for us in this question that when Frudegardus in the time of Charles the Bald had upon occasion of the dispute which then began to be hot and interested in this question read this book of S. Austin he was changed to the opinion of a Spiritual and mysterious presence and upon occasion of that his being perswaded by S. Austin Paschasius Ratberdus wrote to him as of a question then doubted of by many persons as is to be seen in his Epistle to Frudegardus I end this of S. Austin with those words of his which he intends by way of rule for expounding these and the like words of Scripture taken out of this book of Christian doctrine Locutio praeceptiva c. A preceptive speech forbidding a crime or commanding something good or profitable is not figurative but if it seems to command a crime or forbid a good then it is figurative Vnless ye eat the flesh of the son of man c. seems to command a wickedness it is therefore a figure commanding us to communicate with the passion of our Lord and sweetly and profitably to lay it up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us I shall not need to urge that this holy Sacrament is called Eucharistia carnis sanguinis The Eucharist of the body and blood by Irenaeus Corpus symbolicum typicum by Origen In typo sanguis by S. Jerome similitudo figura typus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 images enigmaes representations expressions exemplars of the Passion by divers others that which I shall note here is this that in the Council of Constantinople it was publickly professed that the Sacrament is not the body of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by nature but by representment for so it is expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy image of it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Eucharistical bread is the true image of the natural flesh and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A figure or image delivered by God of his flesh and a true image of the incarnate dispensation of Christ. These things are found in the third Tome of the Sixth Action of the second Nicene Council where a pert Deacon ignorant and confident had boldly said that none of the Apostles or Fathers had ever called the Sacrament the image of Christs body that they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 antitypes before consecration he grants but after consecration they are called and are and are believed to be the body and blood of Christ properly which I suppose he might have learned of Damascene who in opposition to the Iconoclasts would not endure the word Type or Image to be used concerning the holy Sacrament for they would admit no other image but that he in defiance of them who had excommunicated him for a worshipper of Images and a half Sarazin would admit any Image but that but denied that to be an Image or Type of Christ de fide l. 4. c. 14. For Christ said not This is the Type of my body but it is it But however this new question began to branle the words of Type and Antitype and the manner of speaking began to be changed yet the Article as yet was not changed For the Fathers used the words of Type and Antitype and Image c. to exclude the natural sence of the Sacramental body and Damascene and Anastasius Sinaita and some others of that Age began to refuse those words lest the Sacrament be thought to be nothing of reality nothing but an Image And that this really was the sence of Damascene appears by his words recited in the Acts of the second Council of Nice affirming that the Divine bread is made Christs body by assumption and inhabitation of the Spirit of Christ in the same manner as water is made the laver of regeneration But however they were pleased to speak in the Nicene assembly yet in the Roman Edition of the Councils the Publishers and Collectors were wiser and put on this marginal note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The holy gifts are oftentimes called types and figures even after consecration particularly by Gregory Nazianzen and S. Cyril of Hierusalem I remember only one thing objected to this testimony of so many Bishops that they were Iconoclasts or breakers of images and therefore not to be trusted in any other Article So Bellarmine as I remember But this is just as if I should say that I ought to refuse the Lateran Council because they were worshippers of Images or defenders of Purgatory Surely if I should I had much more reason to refuse their sentence than there is that the Greeks should be rejected upon so slight a pretence nay for doing that which for ought appears was in all their circumstances their duty in a high
fuit dogma fidei said Scotus it was no Article of Faith and how it can be afterwards since Christ is only the Author and finisher of our Faith and therefore all Faith was delivered from the beginning is a matter of highest danger and consideration But yet this also I shall interpose if it may do any service in the question or help to remove a prejudice from our adversaries who are born up by the authority of that Council That the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not determined by the great Lateran Council The word was first invented by Stephen Bishop of Augustodunum about the year 1100 or a little after in his book De Sacramento Altaris and the word did so please Pope Innocentius III. that he inserted it into one of the 70 Canons which he proposed to the Lateran Council A. D. 1215. which Canons they heard read but determined nothing concerning them as Matthew Paris Platina and Nauclerus witness But they got reputation by being inserted by Gregory IX into his Decretals which yet he did not in the name of the Council but of Innocentius to the Council But the first that ever published these Canons under the name of the Lateran Council was Johannes Cochlaeus A. D. 1538. But the Article was determined at Rome 36 years after that Council by a general Council of 54 Prelates and no more And this was the first authority or countenance it had Stephen christened the Article and gave the name and this Congregation confirmed it SECT XIII Of Adoration of the Sacrament WHEN a proposition goes no further than the head and the tongue it can carry nothing with it but his own appendages viz. to be right or to be wrong and the man to be deceived or not deceived in his judgment But when it hath influence upon practice it puts on a new investiture and is tolerable or intolerable according as it leads to actions good or bad Now in all the questions of Christendom nothing is of greater effect or more material event than this For since by the decree of the Council of Trent they are bound to exhibit to the Sacrament the same worship which they give to the true God either this Sacrament is Jesus Christ or else they are very Idolaters I mean materially such even while in their purposes they decline it I will not quarrel with the words of the decree commanding to give Divine worship to the Sacrament which by the definition of their own Schools is an outward visible sign of an inward Spiritual grace and so they worship the sign and the grace with the worship due to God But that which I insist upon is this That if they be deceived in this difficult question against which there lie such infinite presumptions and evidence of sense and invincible reason and grounds of Scripture * and in which they are condemned by the Primitive Church and by the common principles of all Philosophy and the nature of things * and the analogy of the Sacrament * for which they had no warrant ever till they made one of their own * which themselves so little understand that they know not how to explicate it * nor agree in their own meaning nor cannot tell well what they mean * If I say they be deceived in their own strict Article besides the strict sence of which there are so many ways of verifying the words of Christ upon which all sides do rely then it is certain they commit an act of Idolatry in giving Divine honour to a meer creature which is the image the Sacrament and representment of the body of Christ and at least it is not certain that they are right there are certainly very great probabilities against them which ought to abate their confidence in the Article and though I am perswaded that the arguments against them are unanswerable for if I did not think so then I shall be able to answer them and if I were able to answer I would not seek to perswade others by that which does not perswade me yet all indifferent persons that is all those who will suffer themselves to be determined by some thing besides interest and education must needs say they cannot be certain they are right against whom there are so many arguments that they are in the wrong The Commandment to worship God alone is so express The distance between God and bread dedicated to the service of God is so vast the danger of worshipping that which is not God or of not worshipping that which is God is so formidable that it is infinitely to be presumed that if it had been intended that we should have worshipped the holy Sacrament the holy Scripture would have called it God or Jesus Christ or have bidden us in express terms to have adored it that either by the first as by a reason indicative or by the second as by a reason imperative we might have had sufficient warrant direct or consequent to have paid a Divine worship Now that there is no implicit warrant in the Sacramental words of This is my body I have given very many reasons to evince by proving the words to be Sacramental and figurative Add to this that supposing Christ present in their sences yet as they have ordered the business they have made it superstitious and Idololatrical for they declare that the Divine worship does belong also to the symbols of bread and wine as being one with Christ they are the words of Bellarmine That even the Species also with Christ are to be adored So Suarez which doctrine might upon the supposal of their grounds be excused if as Claudius de Sainctes dreamed they and the body of Christ had but one existence but this themselves admit not of but he is confuted by Suarez But then let it be considered that since those species or accidents are not inherent in the holy body nor have their existence from it but wholly subsist by themselves as they dream since between them and the holy body there is no substantial no personal union it is not imaginable how they can pass Divine worship to those accidents which are not in the body nor the same with the body but by an impossible supposition subsist of themselves and were proper to bread and now not communicable to Christ and yet not commit idolatry especially since the Nestorians were by the Fathers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or worshippers of a man because they worshipped the humanity of Christ which they supposed not to be personally but habitually united to the Divinity 2. But secondly Suppose that the Article were true in Thesi and that the bread in consecration was changed as they suppose yet it is to be considered that that which is practicable in this Article is yet made as uncertain and dangerous as before For by many defects secret and insensible by many notorious and evident the change may be hindred and the symbols still remain as very bread
and wine as ever and rob God of his honour For if the Priest erres in reciting the words of consecration by addition or diminution or alteration or longer interruption if he do but say Hoc est corpus meum for corpus meum or meum corpus for corpus meum or if he do but as the Priest that Agrippa tells of that said Haec sunt corpora mea lest consecrating many hosts he should speak false Latin if either the Priest be timorous surprized or intemperate in all these cases the Priest and the People too worship nothing but bread And some of these are the more considerable I mean those defectibilities in pronunciation because the Priest always speaking the words of consecration in a secret voice not to be heard None of the people can have any notice whether he speaks the words so sufficiently as to secure them from worshipping a piece of bread If none of all these happen yet if he do not intend to consecrate all but some and yet know not which to omit * if he do intend but to mock * if he be a secret Atheist * a Moor * or a Jew * if he be an impious person and laugh at the Sacrament * if he do not intend to do as the Church does * that is if his intention be neither actual nor real then in all these cases the people give Divine worship to that which is nothing but bread * But if none of all this happen yet if he be not a Priest quod saepe accidit saith Pope Adrianus VI. in quaest quodlib q. 3. it often happens that the Priest feigns himself to celebrate and does not celebrate or feigns himself to celebrate and is no Priest * if he be not baptized rightly * if there was in his person as by being Simoniack or irregular a bastard or bigamus or any other impediment which he can or cannot know of if there was any defect in his Baptism or Ordinations or in the Baptism and Ordination of him that ordained him or in all the succession from the head of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Apostles that first began the Series in all these cases it cannot but be acknowledged by their own doctrine that the consecration is invalid and ineffective the product is nothing but a piece of bread is made the object of the Divine worship Well! suppose that none of all this happens yet there are many defects in respect of the matter also as if the bread be corrupted * or the wine be vinegar * if it be mingled with any other substance but water * or if the water be the prevailing ingredient or if the bread be not wheat or the wine be of soure or be of unripe grapes in all these cases nothing is changed but bread remains still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meer bread and meer wine and yet they are worshipped by Divine adoration 3. Thirdly When certain of the Society of Jesuits were to die by the Laws of England in the beginning of King James his reign it was ask'd them whether if they might have leave to say Masse they would to the people standing by for the confirmation of their doubt and to convert them say these words unless this whole Species you see in the Chalice be the same blood which did flow out of the side of the Crucifix or of Christ hanging on the Cross let there be no part for me in the blood of Christ or in Christ himself to eternal ages and so with these words in their mouthes yield to death They all denied it none of them would take such a Sacrament upon them And when Garnet that unhappy man was tempted to the same sence he answered that a man might well doubt of the particular No man was bound to believe that any one Priest in particular now or at any one certain time does consecrate effectively But that the bread is transubstantiated some where or other at some time or other by some Priest or other This I receive from the relation of a wise Prelate a great and a good man whose memory is precious and is had in honour But the effect of this is that Transubstantiation supposing the doctrine true as it is most false yet in practice is uncertain but the giving it Divine worship is certain the change is believed only in general but it is worshipped in particular concerning which whether it be any thing more than bread it is impossible without a revelation they should know These then are very ill and deeply to be considered for certain it is God is a jealous God and therefore will be impatient of every incroachment upon his peculiar And then for us as we must pray with faith and without doubting so it is fit we should worship and yet in this case and upon these premises no man can chuse but doubt and therefore he cannot he ought not to worship Quod dubitas ne feceris 4. I will not censure concerning the men that do it or consider concerning the action whether it be formal idolatry or no. God is their Judge and mine and I beg he would be pleased to have mercy upon us all but yet they that are interested for their own particulars ought to fear and consider these things 1. That no man without his own fault can mistake a creature so far as to suppose him to be a God 2. That when the Heathens worshipped the Sun and Moon they did it upon their confidence that they were gods and would not have given to them Divine honours if they had thought otherwise 3. That the distinction of material and formal idolatry though it have a place in Philosophy because the understanding can consider an act with his error and yet separate the parts of the consideration yet hath no place in Divinity because in things of so great concernment it cannot but be supposed highly agreeable to the goodness and justice of God that every man be sufficiently instructed in his duty and convenient notices 4. That no man in the world upon these grounds except he that is malicious and spightful can be an Idolater for if he have an ignorance great enough to excuse him he can be no Idolater if he have not he is spightful and malicious and then all the Heathens are also excused as well as they 5. That if good intent and ignorance in such cases can take off the crime then the persecuters that killed the Apostles thinking they did God good service and Saul in blaspheming the religion and persecuting the servants of Jesus and the Jews themselves in crucifying the Lord of life who did it ignorantly as did also their Rulers have met with their excuse upon the same account And therefore it is not safe for the men of the Roman communion to take anodyne medicines and Narcoticks to make them insensible of the pain for it will not cure their disease Their doing it upon the stock of
opinor aut quam rarissimum de purgatorio sermonem inveniet Sed neque Latini simul omnes at sensim hujus rei veritatem conceperunt He that pleases let him read the Commentaries of the Old Greeks and as I suppose he shall find none or very rare mention or speech of Purgatory But neither did all the Latins at one time but by little and little conceive the truth of this thing And again Aliquandin incognitum fuit serò cognitum Vniversae Ecclesiae Deinde quibusdam pedetentim partim ex Scripturis partim ex revelationibus creditum fuit For somewhile it was unknown it was but lately known to the Catholick Church Then it was believ'd by some by little and little partly from Scripture partly from revelations And this is the goodly ground of the doctrine of Purgatory founded no question upon tradition Apostolical delivered some hundreds of years indeed after they were dead but the truth is because it was forgotten by the Apostles and they having so many things in their heads when they were alive wrote and said nothing of it therefore they took care to send some from the dead who by new revelations should teach this old doctrine This we may conjecture to be the equivalent sence of the plain words of Roffensis But the plain words are sufficient without a Commentary Now for Polydore Virgil his own words can best tell what he says The words I have put into the Margent because they are many the sence of them is this 1. He finds no use of Indulgences before the stations of S. Gregory the consequent of that is that all the Latin Fathers did not receive them before S. Gregorie's time and therefore they did not receive them all together 2. The matter being so obscure Polydore chose to express his sence in the testimony of Roffensis 3. From him he affirms that the use of Indulgences is but new and lately received amongst Christians 4. That there is no certainty concerning their original 5. They report that amongst the Ancient Latins there was some use of them But it is but a report for he knows nothing of it before S. Gregorie's time and for that also he hath but a mere report 6. Amongst the Greeks it is not to this day believ'd 7. As long as there was no care of Purgatory no man look'd after Indulgences because if you take away Purgatory there is no need of Indulgences 8. That the use of Indulgences began after men had a while trembled at the torments of Purgatory This if I understand Latin or common sence is the doctrine of Polydore Virgil and to him I add also the testimony of Alphonsus à Castro De Purgatorio fere nulla mentio potissimum apud Graecos scriptores Qua de causa usque hodiernum diem purgatorium non est à Graecis creditum The consequent of these things is this If Purgatory was not known to the Primitive Church if it was but lately known to the Catholick Church if the Fathers seldom or never make mention of it If in the Greek Church especially there was so great silence of it that to this very day it is not believed amongst the Greeks then this Doctrine was not an Apostolical Doctrine not Primitive nor Catholick but an Innovation and of yesterday And this is of it self besides all these confessions of their own parties a suspicious matter because the Church of Rome does establish their Doctrine of Purgatory upon the Ancient use of the Church of praying for the dead But this consequence of theirs is wholly vain because all the Fathers did pray for the dead yet they never prayed for their deliverance out of Purgatory nor ever meant it To this it is thus objected It is confessed that they prayed for them that God would shew them a mercy Now Mark well If they be in Heaven they have a mercy the sentence is given for Eternal happiness If in Hell they are wholly destitute of mercy unless there be a third place where mercy can be shewed them I have according to my order mark'd it well but find nothing in it to purpose For though the Fathers prayed for the souls departed that God would shew them mercy yet it was that God would shew them mercy in the day of judgment In that formidable and dreadful day then there is need of much mercy unto us saith Saint Chrysostom And methinks this Gentleman should not have made use of so pitiful an Argument and would not if he had consider'd that Saint Paul prayed for Onesiphorus That God would shew him a mercy in that day that is in the day of Judgment as generally Interpreters Ancient and Modern do understand it and particularly Saint Chrysostom now cited The faithful departed are in the hands of Christ as soon as they die and they are very well and the souls of the wicked are where it pleases God to appoint them to be tormented by a fearful expectation of the revelation of the day of judgment but Heaven and Hell are reserved till the day of judgment and the Devils themselves are reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day saith Saint Jude and in that day they shall be sentenc'd and so shall all the wicked to everlasting fire which as yet is but prepar'd for the Devil and his Angels for ever But is there no mercy to be shewed to them unless they be in Purgatory Some of the Ancients speak of visitation of Angels to be imparted to the souls departed and the hastening of the day of judgment is a mercy and the avenging of the Martyrs upon their Adversaries is a mercy for which the Souls under the Altar pray saith Saint John in the Revelation and the Greek Fathers speak of a fiery trial at the day of judgment through which every one must pass and there will be great need of mercy And after all this there is a remission of sins proper to this world when God so pardons that he gives the grace of repentance that he takes his judgments off from us that he gives us his holy Spirit to mortifie our sins that he admits us to work in his Laboratory that he sustains us by his power and promotes us by his Grace and stands by us favourably while we work out our salvation with fear and trembling and at last he crowns us with perseverance But at the day of Judgment there shall be a pardon of sins that will crown this pardon when God shall pronounce us pardon'd before all the world and when Christ shall actually and presentially rescue us from all the pains which our sins have deserved even from everlasting pain And that 's the final pardon for which till it be accomplished all the faithful do night and day pray incessantly although to many for whom they do pray they friendly believe that it is now certain that they shall then be glorified Saepissime petuntur illa quae
and Martyrs Confessors Bishops and Anachorets that prosecuting the Lord Jesus Christ with a singular honour we separate these from the rank of other men and give due worship to his Divine Majesty while we account that he is not to be made equal to mortal men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although they had a thousand times more righteousness than they have Now first here is mention made of all in their Prayers and Oblations and yet no mention made that the Church prayes for one sort and only gives thanks for the other as these Gentlemen the Objectors falsely pretend But here is a double separation made of the Righteous departed one is from the worser sort of sinners the other from the most righteous Saviour True it is they believ'd they had more need to pray for some than for others but if they did not pray for all when they made mention of all how did they honour Christ by separating their condition from his Is it not lawful to give thanks for the life and death for the resurrection holiness and glorification of Christ And if the Church only gave thanks for the departed Saints and did not pray for mercy for them too how are not the Saints in this made equal to Christ So that I think the testimony of Epiphanius is clear and pertinent To which greater light is given by the words of Saint Austin Who is he for whom no man prayes but only he who interceeds for all men viz. our Blessed Lord. And there is more light yet by the example of Saint Austin who though he did most certainly believe his Mother to be a Saint and the Church of Rome believes so too yet he prayed for pardon for her Now by this it was that Epiphanius separated Christ from the Saints departed for he could not mean any thing else and because he was then writing against Aerius who did not deny it to be lawful to give God thanks for the Saints departed but affirm'd it to be needless to pray for them viz. he must mean this of the Churches praying for all her dead or else he had said nothing against his Adversary or for his own cause Saint Cyril though he be confidently denied to have said what he did say yet is confessed to have said these words Then we pray for the deceased Fathers and Bishops and finally for all who among us have departed this life Believing it to be a very great help of the souls for which is offered the obsecration of the holy and dreadful Sacrifice If Saint Cyril means what his words signifie then the Church did pray for departed Saints for they prayed for all the departed Fathers and Bishops it is hard if amongst them there were no Saints but suppose that yet if there were any Saints at all that died out of the Militant Church yet the case is the same for they prayed for all the departed And 2. They offered the dreadful Sacrifice for them all 3. They offered it for all in the way of prayer 4. And they believed this to be a great help to souls Now unless the souls of all Saints that died then went to Purgatory which I am sure the Roman Doctors dare not own the case is plain that prayer and not thanksgivings only were offered by the Ancient Church for souls who by the Confession of all sides never went to Purgatory and therefore praying for the dead is but a weak Argument to prove Purgatory Nicolaus Cabasilas hath an evasion from all this as he supposes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the word us'd in the Memorials of Saints does not alwayes signifie praying for one but it may signifie giving of thanks This is true but it is to no purpose for when ever it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we pray for such a one that must signifie to pray for and not to give thanks and that 's our present case and therefore no escape here can be made the words of Saint Cyril are very plain The third Allegation is of the Canon of the Greeks which is so plain evident and notorious and so confessâ—d even by these Gentlemen the Objectors that I will be tried by the words which the Author of the Letter acknowledges So it is in the Liturgy of Saint James Remember all Orthodox from Abel the just unto this day make them to rest in the land of the living in thy Kingdom and the delights of Paradise Thus far this Gentleman quoted Saint James and I wonder that he should urge a conclusion manifestly contrary to his own Allegation Did all the Orthodox from Abel to that day go to Purgatory Certainly Abraham and Moses and Elias and the Blessed Virgin did not and Saint Stephen did not and the Apostles that died before this Liturgy was made did not and yet the Church prayed for all Orthodox prayed that they might rest in the Land of the living c. and therefore they prayed for such which by the confession of all sides never went to Purgatory In the other Liturgies also the Gentleman sets down words enough to confute himself as the Reader may see in the Letter if it be worth the reading But because he sets down what he list and makes breaches and Rabbet holes to pop in as he please I shall for the satisfaction of the Reader set down the full sence and practice of the Greek Canon in this Question And first for Saint James his Liturgy which being merrily disposed and dreaming of advantage by it he is pleased to call the Mass of Saint James Sixtus Senensis gives this account of it James the Apostle in the Liturgy of the Divine Sacrifice prays for the souls of Saints resting in Christ so that he shews they are not yet arriv'd at the place of expected blessedness But the form of the prayer is after this manner Domine Deus noster c. O Lord our God remember all the Orthodox and them that believe rightly in the faith from Abel the just unto this day Make them to rest in the Region of the living in thy Kingdom in the delights of Paradise in the bosom of Abraham Isaac and Jacob our Holy Fathers from whence are banished grief sorrow and sighing where the light of thy countenance is president and perpetually shines In the Liturgy of Saint Basil which he is said to have made for the Churches of Syria is this Prayer Be mindful O Lord of them which are dead and departed out of this life and of the Orthodox Bishops which from Peter and James the Apostles unto this day have clearly professed the right word of Faith and namely of Ignatius Dionysius Julius and the rest of the Saints of worthy memory Nay not only for these but they pray for the very Martyrs O Lord remember them who have resisted or stood unto blood for Religion and have fed thy holy Flock with righteousness and holiness Certainly this is not giving of
of their Goods Ridiculous What then Saint Austin himself tells us by so much as they lov'd their goods more or less by so much sooner or later they shall be sav'd And what he said of this kind of sin viz. too much worldliness with the same Reason he might suppose of others this he thought possible but of this he was not sure and therefore it was not then an Article of Faith and though now the Church of Rome hath made it so yet it appears that it was not so from the beginning but is part of their new fashion'd faith And E. W. striving so impossibly and so weakly to avoid the pressure of this Argument should do well to consider whether he have not more strained his Conscience than the words of Saint Austin But this matter must not pass thus Saint Austin repeats this whole passage verbatim in his Answer to the 8. Quest. of Dulcitius Quest. 1. and still answers in this and other appendant Questions of the same nature viz. Whether Prayers for the dead be available c. Quest. 2. And whether upon the instant of Christ's appearing he will pass to judgment Quest 3. In these things which we have describ'd our and the infirmity of others may be so exercis'd and instructed nevertheless that they pass not for Canonical Authority And in the Answer to the first Question he speaks in the style of a doubtful person Whether men suffer such things in this life only or also such certain judgments follow even after this life this Understanding of this sentence is not as I suppose abhorrent from truth The same words he also repeats in his Book de fide operibus Chap. 16. There is yet another place of S. Austin in which it is plain he still is a doubting person in the Question of Purgatory His sence is this After the death of the body until the resurrection if in the interval the spirits of the dead are said to suffer that kind of fire which they feel not who had not such manners and loves in their life-time that their wood hay and stubble ought to be consum'd but others feel who brought such buildings along with them whether there only or whether here and there or whether therefore here that it might not be there that they feel a fire of a transitory tribulation burning their secular buildings though escaping from damnation I reprove it not for peradventure it is true So Saint Austin's peradventure yea is alwayes peradventure nay and will the Bigots of the Roman Church be content with such a confession of faith as this of Saint Austin in the present Article I believe not But now after all this I will not deny but Saint Austin was much inclin'd to believe Purgatory fire and therefore I shall not trouble my self to answer the citations to that purpose which Bellarmine and from him these Transcribers bring out of this Father though most of them are drawn out of Apocryphal spurious and suspected pieces as his Homilies de S. S. c. yet that which I urge is this that Saint Austin did not esteem this to be a Doctrine of the Church no Article of Faith but a disputable Opinion and yet though he did incline to the wrong part of the Opinion yet it is very certain that he sometimes speaks expresly against this Doctrine and other times speaks things absolutely inconsistent with the Opinion of Purgatory which is more than an Argument of his confessed doubting for it is a declaration that he understood nothing certain in this affair but that the contrary to his Opinion was the more probable And this appears in these few following words Saint Austin hath these words Some suffer temporary punishments in this life only others after death others both now and then Bellarmine and from him Diaphanta urges this as a great proof of Saint Austin's Doctrine But he destroyes it in the words immediately following and makes it useless to the hypothesis of the Roman Church This shall be before they suffer the last and severest judgment meaning as Saint Austin frequently does such sayings of the General conflagration at the end of the world But whether he does so or no yet he adds But all of them come not into the everlasting punishments which after the Judgment shall be to them who after death suffer the temporary By which Doctrine of Saint Austin viz. that those who are in his Purgatory shall many of them be damn'd and the temporary punishments after death do but usher in the Eternal after judgment he destroyes the salt of the Roman fire who imagines that all that go to Purgatory shall be sav'd Therefore this testimony of Saint Austin as it is nothing for the avail of the Roman Purgatory so by the appendage it is much against it which Coquaeus Torrensis and especially Cardinal Perron observing have most violently corrupted these words by falsely translating them So Perron Tous ceux qui souffrent des peines temporelles apres lâ— mort ne viennent pas aux peines Eternelles qui auront tien apres le judgement which reddition is expresly against the sence of Saint Austin's words 2. But another hypothesis there is in Saint Austin to which without dubitation he does peremptorily adhere which I before intimated viz. that although he admit of Purgatory pains after this life yet none but such as shall be at the day of Judgment Whoever therefore desires to avoid the eternal pains let him be not only baptiz'd but also justified in Christ and truly pass from the Devil unto Christ. But let him not think that there shall be any Purgatory pains but before that last and dreadful Judgment meaning not only that there shall be none to cleanse them after the day of Judgment but that then at the approach of that day the General fire shall try and purge And so himself declares his own sence All they that have not Christ in the foundation are argued or reproved when in the day of Judgment but they that have Christ in the foundation are chang'd that is purg'd who build upon this foundation wood hay stubble So that in the day of Judgment the trial and escape shall be for then shall the trial and the condemnation be But yet more clear are his words in other places So at the setting of the Sun that is at the end viz. of the world the day of judgment is signified by that fire dividing the carnal which are to be sav'd by fire and those who are to be damned in the fire nothing is plainer than that Saint Austin understood that those who are to be sav'd so as by fire are to be sav'd by passing through the fire at the day of judgment that was his Opinion of Purgatory And again out of these things which are spoken it seems more evidently to appear that there shall be certain purgatory pains of some persons in that judgment For what thing else
and before the day of Judgment any souls are translated into a state of bliss out of a state of pain that is that from Purgatory they go to heaven before the day of Judgment He that can shew this will teach me what I have not yet learned but he that cannot shew it must not pretend that the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory was ever known to the Ancient Fathers of the Church SECT III. Of Transubstantiation THE purpose of the Dissuasive was to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be new neither Catholick nor Apostolick In order to which I thought nothing more likely to perswade or dissuade than the testimonies of the parties against themselves And although I have many other inducements as will appear in the sequel yet by so earnestly contending to invalidate the truth of the quotations the Adversaries do confess by implication if these sayings be as is pretended then I have evinc'd my main point viz. that the Roman doctrines as differing from us are novelties and no parts of the Catholick faith Thus therefore the Author of the letter begins He quotes Scotus as declaring the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible which he saith not To the same purpose he quotes Ocham but I can find no such thing in him To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis but he hath no such thing But in order to the verification of what I said I desire it be first observ'd what I did say for I did not deliver it so crudely as this Gentleman sets it down For 1. These words the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible are not the words of all them before nam'd they are the sence of them all but the words but of one or two of them 2. When I say that some of the Roman Writers say that Transubstantiation is not express'd in the Scripture I mean and so I said plainly as without the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of it Now then for the quotations themselves I hope I shall give a fair account 1. The words quoted are the words of Biel when he had first affirmed that Christs body is contained truly under the bread and that it is taken by the faithful all which we believe and teach in the Church of England he adds Tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum that is the way of Transubstantiation an sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi 〈◊〉 pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canâ—ne Biblii and that 's the way of Consubstantiation so that here is expresly taught what I affirm'd was taught that the Scriptures did not express the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and he adds that concerning this there were Anciently divers opinions Thus far the quotation is right But of this man there is no notice taken But what of Scotus He saith no such thing well suppose that yet I hope this Gentleman will excuse me for Bellarmines sake who says the same thing of Scotus as I do and he might have found it in the Margent against the quotation of Scotus if he had pleas'd His words are these Secondly he saith viz. Scotus that there is not extant any place of Scripture so express without the declaration of the Church that it can compel us to admit of Transubstantiation And this is not altogether improbable For though the Scriptures which we brought above seem so clear to us that it may compel a man that is not wilful yet whether it be so or no it may worthily be doubted since most learned and acute men such as Scotus eminently was believe the contrary Well! But the Gentleman can find no such thing in Ocham I hope he did not look far for Ocham is not the man I mean however the Printer might have mistaken but it is easily pardonable because from O. Cam. meaning Odo Cameracensis it was easie for the Printer or transcriber to write Ocam as being of more publick name But the Bishop of Cambray is the man that followed Scotus in this opinion and is acknowledged by Bellarmine to have said the same that Scotus did he being one of his docti acutissimi viri there mentioned Now if Roffensis have the same thing too this Author of the Letter will have cause enough to be a little ashamed And for this I shall bring his words speaking of the whole institution of the Blessed Sacrament by our blessed Saviour he says Neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fierâ— carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam I suppose I need to say no more to verifie these citations but yet I have another very good witness to prove that I have said true and that is Salmeron who says that Scotus out of Innocentius reckons three opinions not of hereticks but of such men who all agreed in that which is the main but he adds Some men and writers believe that this article cannot be proved against a heretick by Scripture alone or reasons alone And so Cajetan is affirm'd by Suarez and Alanus to have said and Melchior Canus perpetuam Mariae virginitatem conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi non ita expressa in libris Canonicis invenies sed adeo tamen certa in â—ide sunt ut contrariorum dogmatum authores Ecclesia haereticos judicarit So that the Scripture is given up for no sure friend in this Q. the Article wholly relies upon the authority of the Church viz. of Rome who makes faith and makes heresies as she please But to the same purpose is that also which Chedzy said in his disputation at Oxford In what manner Christ is there whether with the bread Transelemented or Transubstantiation the Scripture in open words tells not But I am not likely so to escape for E. W. talks of a famous or rather infamous quotation out of Peter Lombard and adds foul and uncivil words which I pass by but the thing is this that I said Petrus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no. I did say so and I brought the very words of Lombard to prove it and these very words E. W. himself acknowledges Si autem quaeritur qualis sit ista conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio I am not able to define or determine whether that change be formal or substantial So far E. W. quotes him but leaves out one thing very material viz. whether besides formal or substantial it be of another kind Now E. W. not being able to deny that Lombard said this takes a great deal of useless pains not one word of all that he says being to the purpose or able to make it probable that Peter Lombard did not say so or that he did not think so
Article of Transubstantiation All those words are true in a very good sence and they are in that sence believ'd in the Church of England but that the bread is no more bread in the Natural sence and that it is naturally nothing but the natural body of Christ that the substance of one is passed into the substance of the other this is not affirmed by the Fathers neither can it be inferred from the former propositions if they had been truly alledged and therefore all that is for nothing and must be intended only to cosen and amuse the Reader that understands not all the windings of this labyrinth In the next place I am to give an account of what passed in the Lateran Council upon this Article For says E. W. the doctrine of Transubstantiation was ever believed in the Church though more fully and explicitely declared in the Lateran Council But in the Dissuasive it was said that it was but pretended to be determined in that Council where many things indeed came then in consultation yet nothing could be openly decreed Nothing says Platina that is says my Adversary nothing concerning the holy land and the aids to be raised for it but for all this there might be a decree concerning Transubstantiation To this I reply that it is as true that nothing was done in this question as that nothing was done in the matter of the Holy War for one was as much decreed as the other For if we admit the acts of the Council that of giving aid to the Holy Land was decreed in the 69. â—anon alias 71. So that this answer is not true But the truth is neither the one nor the other was decreed in that Council For that I may inform this Gentleman in a thing which possibly he never heard of this Council of Lateran was never published nor any acts of it till Cochlaeus published them A. D. 1538. For three years before this John Martin published the Councils and then there was no such thing as the acts of the Lateran Council to be found But you will say how came Cochlaeus by them To this the answer is easie There were read in the Council sixty Chapters which to some did seem easie to others burthensome but these were never approved but the Council ended in scorn and mockery and nothing was concluded neither of faith nor manners nor war nor aid for the Holy Land but only the Pope got mony of the Prelates to give them leave to depart But afterwards Pope Gregory IX put these Chapters or some of them into the Decretals but doth not intitle any of these to the Council of Lateran but only to Pope Innocent in the Council which Cardinal Perron ignorantly or wilfully mistaking affirms the contrary But so it is that Platina affirms of the Pope plurima decreta retulit improbavit Joachimi libellum damnavit errores Almerici The Pope recited 60. heads of decrees in the Council but no man says the Council decreed those heads Now these heads Cochlaeus says he found in an old book in Germany And it is no ways probable that if the Council had decreed those heads that Gregory IX who published his Uncles decretal Epistles which make up so great a part of the Canon Law should omit to publish the decrees of this Council or that there should be no acts of this great Council in the Vatican and that there should be no publication of them till about 300. years after the Council and that out of a blind corner and an old unknown Manuscript But the Book shews its original it was taken from the Decretals for it contains just so many heads viz. LXXII and is not any thing of the Council in which only were recited LX. heads and they have the same beginnings and endings and the same notes and observations in the middle of the Chapters which shews plainly they were a meer force of the Decretals The consequent of all which is plainly this that there was no decree made in the Council but every thing was left unfinished and the Council was affrighted by the warlike preparations of them of Genoa and Pisa and all retir'd Concerning which affair the Reader that desires it may receive further satisfaction if he read the Antiquitates Britannicae in the life of Stephen Lancton out of the lesser History of Matthew Paris as also Sabellicus and Godfride the Monk But since it is become a question what was or was not determined in this Lateran Council I am content to tell them that the same authority whether of Pope or Council which made Transubstantiation an article of faith made Rebellion and Treason to be a duty of Subjects for in the same collection of Canons they are both decreed and warranted under the same signature the one being the first Canon and the other the third The use I shall make of all is this Scotus was observed above to say that in Scripture there is nothing so express as to compel us to believe Transubstantiation meaning that without the decree and authority of the Church the Scripture was of it self insufficient And some others as Salmeron notes affirm that Scripture and Reason are both insufficient to convince a heretick in this article this is to be prov'd ex Conciliorum definitione Patrum traditione c. by the definition of Councils and tradition of the Fathers for it were easie to answer the places of Scripture which are cited and the reasons Now then since Scripture alone is not thought sufficient nor reasons alone if the definitions of Councils also shall fail them they will be strangely to seek for their new article Now for this their only Castle of defence is the Lateran Council Indeed Bellarmine produces the Roman Council under Pope Nicholas the second in which Berengarius was forc'd to recant his error about the Sacrament but he recanted it into a worse error and such which the Church of Rome disavows at this day And therefore ought not to pretend it as a patron of that doctrine which she approves not And for the little Council under Greg. 7. it is just so a general Council as the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church or a particular is an Universal But suppose it so for this once yet this Council medled not with the modus viz. Transubstantiation or the ceasing of its being bread but of the Real Presence of Christ under the Elements which is no part of our question Berengarius denied it but we do not when it is rightly understood Pope Nicholaus himself did not understand the new article for it was not fitted for publication until the time of the Lateran Council and how nothing of this was in that Council determin'd I have already made appear and therefore as Scotus said the Scripture alone could not evict this article so he also said in his argument made for the Doctors that held the first opinion mentioned before out of
Innocentius Nec invenitur ubi Ecclesia istam veritatem determinet solenniter Neither is it found where the Church hath solemnly determin'd it And for his own particular though he was carried into captivity by the symbol of Pope Innocent 3. for which by that time was pretended the Lateran Council yet he himself said that before that Council it was no article of faith and for this thing Bellarmine reproves him and imputes ignorance to him saying that it was because he had not read the Roman Council under Greg. 7. nor the consent of the Fathers And to this purpose I quoted Henriquez saying that Scotus saith the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not ancient the Author of the Letter denies that he saith any such thing of Scotus But I desire him to look once more and my Margent will better direct him What the opinion of Durandus was in this Question if these Gentlemen will not believe me let them believe their own friends But first let it be consider'd what I said viz. that he maintain'd viz. in disputation that even after consecration the very matter of bread remain'd 2. That by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held 3. That nevertheless it is possible it should be so 4. That it is no contradiction that the matter of bread should remain and yet it be Christs body too 5. That this were the easier way of solving the difficulties That all this is true I have no better argument than his own words which are in his first question of the eleventh distinction in quartum num 11. n. 15. For indeed the case was very hard with these learned men who being pressed by authority did bite the file and submitted their doctrine but kept their reason to themselves and what some in the Council of Trent observed of Scotus was true also of Durandus and divers other Schoolmen with whom it was usual to deny things with a kind of courtesie And therefore Durandus in the places cited though he disputes well for his opinion yet he says the contrary is modus tenendus de facto But besides that his words are as I understand them plain and clear to manifest his own hearty perswasion yet I shall not desire to be believed upon my own account for fear I be mistaken but that I had reason to say it Henriquez shall be my warrant Durandus dist qu. 3. ait esse probabile sed absque assertione c. He saith it is probable but without assertion that in the Eucharist the same matter of bread remains without quantity And a little after he adds out of Cajetan Paludanus and Soto that this opinion of Durandus is erroneous but after the Council of Trent it seems to be heretical And yet he says it was held by Aegidius and Euthymius who had the good luck it seems to live and die before the Council of Trent otherwise they had been in danger of the inquisition for heretical pravity But I shall not trouble my self further in this particular I am fully vindicated by Bellarmine himself who spends a whole Chapter in the confutation of this error of Durandus viz. that the matter of bread remains he endeavours to answer his arguments and gives this censure of him Itaque sententia Durandi hâ—retica est Therefore the sentence of Durandus is heretical although he be not to be called a heretick because he was ready to acquiesce in the judgment of the Church So Bellarmine who if he say true that Durandus was ready to submit to the judgment of the Church then he does not say true when he says the Church before his time had determined against him but however that I said true of him when I imputed this opinion to him Bellarmine is my witness Thus you see I had reason for what I said and by these instances it appears how hardly and how long the doctrine of Transubstantiation was before it could be swallowed But I remember that Salmeron tells of divers who distrusting of Scripture and reason had rather in this point rely upon the tradition of the Fathers and therefore I descended to take from them this armour in which they trusted And first to ease a more curious inquiry which in a short dissuasive was not convenient I us'd the abbreviature of an adversaries confession For Alphonsus à Castro confess'd that in Ancient writers there is seldome any mention made of Transubstantiation one of my adversaries says this is not spoken of the thing but of the name of Transubstantiation but if à Castro meant this only of the word he spake weakly when he said that the name or word was seldom mention'd by the Ancients 1. Because it is false that it was seldom mention'd by the Ancients for the word was by the Ancient Fathers never mention'd 2. Because there was not any question of the word where the thing was agreed and therefore as this saying so understood had been false so also if it had been true it would have been impertinent 3. It is but a trifling artifice to confess the name to be unknown and by that means to insinuate that the thing was then under other names It is a secret cosenage of an unwary Reader to bribe him into peace and contentedness for the main part of the Question by pleasing him in that part which it may be makes the biggest noise though it be less material 4. If the thing had been mentioned by the Ancients they need not would not ought not to have troubled themselves and others by a new word to have still retained the old proposition under the old words would have been less suspicious more prudent and ingenious but to bring in a new name is but the cover for a new doctrine and therefore S. Paul left an excellent precept to the Church to avoid prophanas vocum novitates the prophane newness of words that is it is fit that the mysteries revealed in Scripture should be preached and taught in the words of the Scripture and with that simplicity openness easiness and candor and not with new and unhallowed words such as is that of Transubstantiation 5. A Castro did not speak of the name alone but of the thing also de transubstantiatione panis in Corpus Christi of the Transubstantiation of bread into Christs body of this manner of conversion that is of this doctrine now doctrines consist not in words but things however his last words are faint and weak and guilty for being convinc'd of the weakness of his defence of the thing he left to himself a subterfuge of words But let it be how it will with à Castro whom I can very well spare if he will not be allowed to speak sober sence and as a wise man should we have better and fuller testimonies in this affair That the Fathers did not so much as touch the matter or thing of Transubstantiation said the Jesuits in prison as is
but therefore this is bread still here the Consequence is good and is so still when the subject of the proposition is something real and not in appearance only Because whatsoever is but in appearance and pretence is a Non-Ens in respect of that real thing which it counterfeits And therefore it follows not This is not a common dove therefore it is a Dove because if this be model'd into a right proposition nihil supponit there is no subject in it for it cannot in this case be said This Dove is no common Dove but this which is like a Dove is not a common Dove and these persons which look like men are not common men And the rule for this and the reason too is Non entis nulla sunt praedicata To which also this may be added that in the proposition as C. Perron expresses it the negation is not the Adjective but the substantive part of the predicate It is no common Dove where the negative term relates to the Dove not to common It is no Dove and the words not common are also equivocal and as it can signifie extraordinary so it can signifie Natural But if the subject of the proposition be something real then the consequent is good as if you bring a Pigeon from Japan all red you may say This is no common Pigeon and your argument is still good therefore it is a Pigeon So if you take sugred bread or bread made of Indian wheat you saying this is no common bread do mean it is extraordinary or unusual but it is bread still and so if it be said this bread is Eucharistical it will follow rightly therefore this is bread For in this case the predicate is only an infinite or Negative term but the subject is suppos'd and affirm'd And this is also more apparent if the proposition be affirmative and the terms be not infinite as it is in the present case This bread is Eucharistical I have now I suppose clear'd the words of Justin M. and expounded them to his own sence and the truth but his sence will further appear in other words which I principally rely upon in this quotation For speaking that of the Prophet Isai. Panis dabitur ei aqua ejus fidelis he hath these words It appears sufficiently That in this prophecie he speaks of bread which our Lord Christ hath deliver'd to us to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a memorial that he is made a body for them that believe in him for whose sake he was made passible and of the Cup which for the recordation of his blood he delivered to them to do that is give thanks or celebrate the Eucharist These are the words of Justin Where 1. According to the first simplicity of the primitive Church he treats of this mystery according to the style of the evangelists and S. Paul and indeed of our Blessed Lord himself commanding all this whole mystery to be done in memory of him 2. If S. Justin had meant any thing of the new fabrick of this mystery he must have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bread made his body though this also would not have done their work for them but when he says he gave the bread only for the remembrance of his being made a body the bread must needs be the sign figure and representation of that body 3. Still he calls it bread even then when Christ gave it still it is wine when the Eucharist is made when the faithful have given thanks and if it be bread still we also grant it to be Christs body and then there is a figure and the things figured the one visible and the other invisible and this is it which I affirmed to be the sence of Justin Martyr And it is more perfectly explicated by Saint Greg. Naz. calling the Pascal Lamb a figure of a figure of which I shall yet give an account in this Section But to make this yet more clear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We do not receive these as common bread or common drink but as by the word of God Jesus Christ our Lord was made flesh and for our salvation had flesh and blood so are we taught that that very nourishment on which by the prayers of his word thanks are given by which our flesh and blood are nourished by change is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus Here S. Justin compares the consecration of the Eucharist by prayer to the incarnation of Christ the thing with the thing to shew it is not common bread but bread made Christs body he compares not the manner of one with the manner of the other as Cardinal Perron would fain have it believed for if it were so it would not only destroy an Article of Christian faith but even of the Roman too for if the changes were in the same manner then either the man is Transubstantiated into God or else the bread is not Transubstantiated into Christs body but the first cannot be because it would destroy the hypostatical Union and make Christ to be one nature as well as one person but for the latter part of the Dilemma viz. that the bread is not Transubstantiated whether it be true or false it cannot be affirmed from hence and therefore the Cardinal labours to no purpose and without consideration of what may follow But now these words make very much against the Roman hypothesis and directly prove the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the consecrated bread that is after it is consecrated to be natural nourishment of the body and therefore to be Christs body only spiritually and Sacramentally unless it can be two substances at the same time Christs body and bread in the Natural sence which the Church of Rome at this day will not allow and if it were allowed it would follow that Christ body should be Transubstantiated into our body and suffer the very worst changes which in our eating and digestion and separation happen to common bread This argument relies upon the concurrent Testimony of many of the ancient Fathers besides Justin Martyr especially S. Irenaeus and certainly destroys the whole Roman Article of Transubstantiation for if the Eucharistical bread nourishes the body then it is still the substance of bread for accidents do not nourish and quantity or quality is not the subject or term of Nutrition but reparation of substance by a substantial change of one into another But of this enough Eusebius is next alledged in the Dissuasive but his words though pregnant and full of proof against the Roman hypothesis are by all the Contra-scribers let alone only one of them says that the place of the quotation is not rightly mark'd for the first three chapters are not extant well but the words are and the last chapter is which is there quoted and to the 10. chapter the Printer should have more carefully attended and not omit the Cypher which I suppose he would
but some few instead of many but those most easie to be done and most glorious to be understood and most pure in their observation our Lord himself and the Apostolical discipline hath delivered such is the Sacrament of Baptism and the celebration of the body and blood of our Lord which when every one takes he understands whither they may be referr'd that he may give them veneration not with carnal service but with a spiritual liberty For as to follow the letter and to take the signs for the things signified by them is a servile infirmity so to interpret the signs unprofitably is an evil wandring error But he that understands not what the sign signifies but yet understandeth it to be a sign is not press'd with servitude But it is better to be press'd with unknown signs so they be profitable than by expounding them unprofitably to thrust our necks into the yoke of slavery from which they were brought fâ—â—th All this S. Austin spake concerning the sacramental signs the bread and the wine in the Eucharist and if by these words he does not intend to affirm that they are the signs signifying Christs body and blood let who please to undertake it make sence of them for my part I cannot To the same purpose are these other words of his Christ is in himself once immolated and yet in the Sacrament he is sacrificed not only in the solemnities of Easter but every day with the people Neither indeed does he lye who being ask'd shall answer that he is sacrificed For if the Sacraments have not a similitude of those things of which they are Sacraments they were altogether no Sacraments but commonly for this similitude they take the names of the things themselves sicut ergo secundum quendam modum c. As therefore after a certain manner the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the Sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ so the Sacrament of Faith viz. Baptism is Faith Christ is but once immolated or sacrificed in himself but every day in the Sacrament that properly this in figure that in substance this in similitude that naturally this sacramentally and spiritually But therefore we call this mystery a sacrifice as we call the Sacrament Christs body viz. by way of similitude or after a certain manner for upon this account the names of the things are imputed to their very figures This is S. Austins sence which indeed he frequently so expresses Now I desire it may be observed that oftentimes when S. Austin speaking of the Eucharist calls it the body and blood of Christ he oftentimes adds by way of explication that he means it in the Sacramental figurative sence but whenever he calls it the figure or the Sacrament of Christs body he never offers to explain that by any words by which he may signifie such a real or natural being of Christs body there as the Church of Rome dreams of but he ought not neither would be have given offence or Umbrage to the Church by any such incurious and loose handling of things if the Church in his age had thought of it otherwise than that it was Christs body in a Sacramental sence Though I have remark'd all that is objected by A. L. yet E. W. is not satisfied with the quotation out of Greg. Naz. not but that he acknowledges it to be right for be sets down the words in Latin but they conclude nothing against Transubstantiation Why so because though the Paschal was a type of a type a figure of a figure yet in S. Gregories sence Christ concealed under the species of bread may be rightly called a figure of its own self more clearly hereafter to be shewed us in Heaven To this pitiful answer the reply is easie S. Gregory clearly enough expresses himself that in the immolation of the Passeover Christ was figured that in the Eucharist he still is figured there more obscurely here more clearly but yet still but typically or in figure nunc quidem adhuc typicè here we are partakers of him typically Afterwards we shall see him perfectly meaning in his Fathers Kingdom So that the Saint affirms Christ to be receiv'd by us in the Sacrament after a figurative or typical manner and therefore not after a substantial as that is oppos'd to figurative Now of what is this a type of himself to be more clearly seen in Heaven hereafter It is very true it is so for this whole ceremony and figurative ritual receiving of Christs body here does prefigure our more excellent receiving and enjoying him hereafter but then it follows that the very proper substance of Christs body is not here for figure or shadow and substance cannot be the same to say a thing that is present is a figure of it self hereafter is to be said by no man but him that cares not what he says Nemo est sui ipsius imago saith S. Hilary and yet if it were possible to be otherwise yet it is a strange figure or sign of a thing that what is invisible should be a sign of what is visible Bellarmine being greatly put to it by the Fathers calling the Sacrament the figure of Christs body says it is in some sence a figure of Christs body on the Cross and here E. W. would affirm out of Naz. that it is a figure of Christs body glorified Now suppose both these dreamers say right then this Sacrament which whether you look forwards or backwards is a figure of Christs body cannot be that body of which so many ways it is a figure So that the whole force of E. W's answer is this that if that which is like be the same then it is possible that a thing may be a sign of its self and a man may be his own picture and that which is invisible may be a sign to give notice to come see a thing that is visible I have now expedited this topick of Authority in this Question amongst the many reasons I urged against Transubstantiation which I suppose to be unanswerable and if I could have answered them my self I would not have produc'd them these Gentlemen my adversaries are pleas'd to take notice but of one But by that it may be seen how they could have answered all the rest if they had pleased The argument is this every consecrated wafer saith the Church of Rome is Christs body and yet this wafer is not that wafer therefore either this or that is not Christs body or else Christ hath two natural bodies for there are two Wafers To this is answered the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies to Christ no more than head and feet infer two souls in a man or conclude there are two Gods one in Heaven and the other in Earth because Heaven and Earth are more distinct than two wafers To which I reply that the soul of man is in the head and feet as
jure humano and yet they shall be bound jure Divino to believe it to be just and specially since the causes of so scandalous an alteration are not set down in the decree of any Council and those which are set down by private Doctors besides that they are no record of the Church they are ridiculous weak and contemptible But as Granatensis said in the Council of Trent this affair can neither be regulated by Scripture nor traditions for surely it is against both but by wisdom wherein because it is necessary to proceed to circumspection I suppose the Church of Rome will always be considering whether she should give the chalice or no and because she will not acknowledge any reason sufficient to give it she will be content to keep it away without reason And which is worse the Church of Rome excommunicates those Priests that communicate the people in both kinds but the Primitive Church excommunicates them that receive but in one kind It is too much that any part of the Church should so much as in a single instance administer the Holy Sacrament otherwise than it is in the institution of Christ there being no other warrant for doing the thing at all but Christs institution and therefore no other way of learning how to do it but by the same institution by which all of it is done And if there can come a case of necessity as if there be no wine or if a man cannot endure wine it is then a disputable matter whether it ought or not to be omitted for if the necessity be of Gods making he is suppos'd to dispence with the impossibility But if a man alters what God appointed he makes to himself a new institution for which in this case there can be no necessity nor yet excuse But suppose either one or other yet so long as it is or is thought a case of necessity the thing may be hopefully excus'd if not actually justified and because it can happen but seldom the matter is not great let the institution be observed always where it can But then in all cases of possibility let all prepared Christians be invited to receive the body and blood of Christ according to his institution or if that be too much at least let all them that desire it be permitted to receive it in Christs way But that men are not suffered to do so that they are driven from it that they are called heretick for saying it is their duty to receive it as Christ gave it and appointed it that they should be excommunicated for desiring to communicate in Christs blood by the symbol of his blood according to the order of him that gave his blood this is such a strange piece of Christianity that it is not easie to imagine what Antichrist can do more against it unless he take it all away I only desire those persons who are here concerned to weigh well the words of Christ and the consequents of them He that breaketh one of the least of my Commandments and shall teach men so and what if he compel men so shall be called the least in the Kingdom of God To the Canon last mentioned it is answered that the Canon speaks not of receiving the sacrament by the communicants but of the consummating the sacrifice by the Priest To this I reply that it is true that the Canon was particularly directed to the Priests by the title which themselves put to it but the Canon medles not with the consecrating or not consecrating in one kind but of receiving for that is the title of the Canon The Priest ought not to receive the body of Christ without the blood and in the Canon it self Comperimus autem quod quidam sumpta corporis sacri portione à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant By which it plainly appears that the consecration was intire for it was calix sacrati cruoris the consecrated chalice from which out of a fond superstition some Priests did abstain the Canon therefore relates to the sumption or receiving not the sacrificing as these men love to call it or consecration and the sanction it self speaks indeed of the reception of the Sacrament but not a word of it as it is in any sence a sacrifice aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur So that the distinction of sacrament and sacrifice in this Question will be of no use to the Church of Rome For if Pope Gelasius for it was his Canon knew nothing of this distinction it is vainly applied to the expounding of his words but if he did know of it then he hath taken that part which is against the Church of Rome for of this mystery as it is a sacrament Gelasius speaks which therefore must relate to the people as well as to the Priest And this Canon is to this purpose quoted by Cassander And 2. no man is able to shew that ever Christ appointed one way of receiving to the Priest and another to the people The law was all one the example the same the Rule is simple and Uniform and no appearance of difference in the Scripture or in the Primitive Church so that though the Canon mentions only the Priest yet it must by the same reason mean all there being at that time do difference known 3. It is call'd sacriledge to divide one and the same mystery meaning that to receive one without the other is to divide the body from the blood for the dream of concomitancy was not then found out and therefore the title of the Canon is thus express'd Corpus Christi sine ejus sanguine sacerdos non debet accipere and that the so doing viz. by receiving one without the other cannot be without sacriledge 4. Now suppose at last that the Priests only are concern'd in this Canon yet even then also they are abundantly reprov'd because even the Priests in the Church of Rome unless they consecrate communicate but in one kind 5. It is also remarkable that although in the Church of Rome there is great use made of the distinction of its being sometime a sacrifice sometime only a sacrament as Frier Ant. Mondolphus said in the Council of Trent yet the arguments by which the Roman Doctors do usually endeavour to prove the lawfulness of the Half-communion do destroy this distinction viz. that of Christs ministring to the Disciples at Emaus and S. Paul in the Ship in which either there is no proof or no consecration in both kinds and consequently no sacrifice for there is mention made only of blessing the bread for they receiv'd that which was blessed and therefore either the consecration was imperfect or the reception was intire To this purpose also the words of S. Ambrose are severe and speak clearly of communicants without distinction of Priest and People which distinction though it be in this article nothing to the purpose yet I observe it to prevent such trifling cavils which my
not cannot profit himself how can he that stands by who understands no more be profited by that which does him that speaks no good For God understands though he does not and yet he that so prays reaps no benefit to himself and therefore neither can any man that understands no more The affirmation is plain and the reason cogent To the same purpose are the words of S. Chrysostom which A. L. himself quotes out of him If one speaks in only the Persian tongue or some other strange tongue but knows not what he saith certainly he will be a barbarian even to himself and not to another only because he knows not the force of the words This is no more than what S. Paul said before him but they all say that he who hears and understands not whether it be the speaker or the scholar is but a Barbarian Thus also S. Ambrose in his Commentary upon the words of S. Paul The Apostle says It is better to speak a few words that are open or understood that all may understand than to have a long oration in obscurity That 's his sence for reading and preaching Now for prayer he adds The unskilful man hearing what he understands not knows not when the prayer ends and answers not Amen that is so be it or it is true that the blessing may be established and a little after If ye meet together to edifie the Church those things ought to be said which the hearers may understand For what profit is it to speak with a tongue when he that hears is not profited Therefore he ought to hold his peace in the Church that they who can profit the hearers may speak S. Austin compares singing in the Church without understanding to the chattering of Parrots and Magpies Crows and Jackdaws But to sing with understanding is by the will of God given to man And we who sing the Divine praises in the Church must remember that it is written Blessed is the people that understands singing of praises Therefore most beloved what with a joyn'd voice we have sung we must understand and discern with a serene heart To the same purpose are the words of Lyra and Aquinas which I shall not trouble the Reader withall here but have set them down in the Margent that the strange confidence of these Romanists out-facing notorious and evident words may be made if possible yet more conspicuous In pursuance of this doctrine of S. Paul and the Fathers the Primitive Christians in their several Ages and Countries were careful that the Bible should be translated into all languages where Christianity was planted That the Bibles were in Greek is notorious and that they were us'd among the people S. Chrysostom homil 1. in Joh. 8. is witness that it was so or that it ought to be so For he exhorts Vacemus ergo scripturis dilectissimi c. Let us set time apart to be conversant in the Scripture at least in the Gospels let us frequently handle them to imprint them in our minds which because the Jews neglected they were commanded to have their books in their hands but let us not have them in our hands but in our houses and in our hearts by which words we may easily understand that all the Churches of the Greek communion had the Bible in their vulgar tongue and were called upon to use them as Christians ought to do that is to imprint them in their hearts and speaking of S. John and his Gospel he says that the Syrians Indians Persians and Ethiopians and infinite other nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they grew wise by translating his S. Johns doctrines into their several languages But it is more that S. Austin says The divine Scripture by which help is supplied to so great diseases proceeded from one language which opportunely might be carried over the whole world that being by the various tongues of interpreters scattered far and wide it might be made known to the Nations for their salvation And Theodoret speaks yet more plainly We have manifestly shown to you the inexhausted strength of the Apostolick and prophetick doctrine for the Vniversal face of the Earth whatsoever is under the Sun is now full of those words For the Hebrew books are not only translated into the Greek idiom but into the Roman tongue the Egyptian Persian Indian Armenian Scythian Sauromatick languages and that I may speak once for all into all tongues which at this day the Nations use By these authorities of these Fathers we may plainly see how different the Roman doctrine and practice is from the sentiment and usages of the Primitive Church and with what false confidence the Roman adversaries deny so evident truth having no other way to make their doctrine seem tolerable but by out-facing the known sayings of so many excellent persons and especially of S. Paul who could not speak his mind in apt and intelligible words if he did not in his Epistle to the Corinthians exhort the Church to pray and prophesie so as to be understood by the Catechumens and by all the people that is to do otherwise than they do in the Roman Church Christianity is a simple wise intelligible and easie Religion and yet if a man will resolve against any proposition he may wrangle himself into a puzle and make himself not to understand it so though it be never so plain what is plainer than the testimony of their own Cajetan That it were more for the edification of the Church that the prayers were in the vulgar tongue He says no more than S. Paul says and he could not speak it plainer And indeed no man of sence can deny it unless he affirms at the same time that it is better to speak what we understand not than what we do or that it were better to serve God without that noble faculty than with it that is that the way of a Parrot and a Jackdaw were better than the way of a man and that in the service of God the Priests and the people are to differ as a man and a bird But besides all this was not Latin it self when it was first us'd in Divine service the common tongue and generally understood by many Nations and very many Colonies and if it was then the use of the Church to pray with the understanding why shall it not be so now however that it was so then and is not so now demonstrates that the Church of Rome hath in this material point greatly innovated Let but the Roman Pontifical be consulted and there will be yet found a form of ordination of Readers in which it is said that they must study to read distinctly and plainly that the people may understand But now it seems that labour is sav'd And when a notorious change was made in this affair we can tell by calling to mind the following story The Moravians did say Mass in the Slavonian tongue for
which Pope John the Eighth severely reprov'd them and commanded them to do so no more but being better inform'd he wrote a letter to their Prince Sfentoputero in which he affirms that it is not contrary to faith and found doctrine to say Mass and other prayers in the Slavonian tongue and adds this reason because he that Hebrew Greek and Latin hath made the others also for his glory and this also he confirms with the authority of S. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians and some other Scriptures only he commanded for the decorum of the business the Gospel should first be said in Latin and then in the Slavonian tongue But just two hundred years after this the Tables were turned and though formerly these things were permitted yet so were many things in the Primitive Church but upon better examination they have been corrected And therefore P. Gregory the seventh wrote to Vratislaus of Bohemia that he could not permit the celebration of the divine offices in the Slavonian tongue and he commanded the Prince to oppose the people herein with all his forces Here the world was strangely altered and yet S. Paul's Epistle was not condemned of heresie and no Council had decreed that all vulgar languages were prophane and no reason can yet be imagined why the change was made unless it were to separate the Priest from the people by a wall of Latin and to nurse stupendious ignorance in them by not permitting to them learning enough to understand their publick prayers in which every man was greatly concerned Neither may this be called a slight matter for besides that Gregory the seventh thought it so considerable that it was a just cause of a war or persecution for he commanded the Prince of Bohemia to oppose the people in it with all his forces besides this I say to pray to God with the understanding is much better than praying with the tongue that alone can be a good prayer this alone can never and then the loss of all those advantages which are in prayers truly understood the excellency of devotion the passion of desires the ascent of the mind to God the adherence to and acts of confidence in him the intellectual conversation with God most agreeable to a rational being the melting affections the pulses of the heart to and from God to and from our selves the promoting and exercising of our hopes all these and very many more which can never be intire but in the prayers and devotions of the heart and can never be in any degree but in the same in which the prayers are acts of love and wisdom of the will and the understanding will be lost to the greatest part of the Catholick Church if the mouth be set open and the soul be gag'd so that it shall be the word of the mouth but not the word of the mind All these things being added to what was said in this article by the Disswasive will more than make it clear that in this article the consequents of which are very great the Church of Rome hath causelesly troubled Christendom and innovated against the Primitive Church and against her own ancient doctrines and practices and even against the Apostle But they care for none of these things Some of their own Bigots profess the thing in the very worst of all these expressions for so Reynolds and Gifford in their Calvino Turcismus complain that such horrid and stupendious evils have followed the translation of Scriptures into vulgar languages that they are of force enough ad istas translationes penitus supprimendas etiamsi Divina vel Apostolica authoritate niterentur Although they did rely upon the authority Apostolical or Divine yet they ought to be taken away So that it is to no purpose to urge Scripture or any argument in the world against the Roman Church in this article for if God himself command it to be translated yet it is not sufficient and therefore these men must be left to their own way of understanding for beyond the law of God we have no argument I will only remind them that it is a curse which God threatens to his rebellious people I will speak to this people with men of another tongue and by strange lips and they shall not understand This is the curse which the Church of Rome contends earnestly for in behalf of their people SECT VI. Of the Worship of Images THAT society of Christians will not easily be reformed that think themselves oblig'd to dispute for the worship of Images the prohibition of which was so great a part of the Mosaick Religion and is so infinitely against the nature and spirituality of the Christian a thing which every understanding can see condemned in the Decalogue and no man can excuse but witty persons that can be bound by no words which they can interpret to a sence contradictory to the design of the common a thing for the hating of and abstaining from which the Jews were so remark'd by all the world and by which as by a distinctive cognizance they were separated from all other Nations and which with perfect resolution they keep to this very day and for the not observing of which they are intolerably scandaliz'd at those societies of Christians who without any necessity in the thing without any pretence of any Law of God for no good and for no wise end and not without infinite danger at least of idolatry retain a worship and veneration to some stocks and stones Such men as these are too hard for all laws and for all arguments so certain it is that faith is an obedience of the will in a conviction of the understanding that if in the will and interests of men there be a perverseness and a non-compliance and that it is not bent by prudent and wise â—lexures and obedience to God and the plain words of God in Scripture nothing can ever prevail neither David nor his Sling nor all the worthies of his army In this question I have said enough in the Disswasive and also in the Ductor Dubitantium but to the arguments and fulness of the perswasion they neither have nor can they say any thing that is material but according to their usual method like flies they search up and down and light upon any place which they suppose to be sore or would make their proselytes believe so I shall therefore first vindicate those few quotations which the Epistles of his brethren except against for there are many and those most pregnant which they take no notice of as bearing in them too clear a conviction 2. I shall answer such testimonies which some of them steal out of Bellarmine and which they esteem as absolutely their best And 3. I shall add something in confirmation of that truth of God which I here have undertaken to defend First for the questioned quotations against the worship of Images S. Cyril was nam'd in the Disswasive as denying that the Christians
that those who are under our Charges should know the force of the Resurrection of Christ and the conduct of the Spirit and live according to the purity of God and the light of the Gospel To this let us cooperate with all wisdom and earnestness and knowledge and spiritual understanding And there is no better way in the world to do this than by ministring to persons singly in the conduct of their Repentance which as it is the work of every man so there are but few persons who need not the conduct of a spiritual guide in the beginnings and progressions of it To the assistance of this work I have now put my Symbol having by the sad experience of my own miseries and the calamities of others to whose restitution I have been called to minister been taught something of the secret of Souls and I have reason to think that the words of our dearest Lord to S. Peter were also spoken to me Tu autem conversus confirma fratres I hope I have received many of the mercies of a repenting sinner and I have felt the turnings and varieties of spiritual entercourses and I have often observed the advantages in ministring to others and am most confident that the greatest benefits of our office may with best effect be communicated to souls in personal and particular Ministrations In the following book I have given advices and have asserted many truths in order to all this I have endeavoured to break in pieces almost all those propositions upon the confidence of which men have been negligent of severe and strict living I have cancell'd some false grounds upon which many answers in Moral Theologie us'd to be made to inquiries in Cases of Conscience I have according to my weak ability described all the necessities and great inducement of a holy life and have endeavoured to do it so plainly that it may be useful to every man and so inoffensively that it may hurt no man I know but one Objection which I am likely to meet withall excepting those of my infirmity and disability which I cannot answer but by protesting the piety of my purposes but this only that in the Chapter of Original sin I speak otherwise than is spoken commonly in the Church of England whos 's ninth Article affirms that the natural propensity to evil and the perpetual lusting of the flesh against the spirit deserves the anger of God and damnation against which I so earnestly seem to dispute in the sixth Chapter of my Book To this I answer that it is one thing to say a thing in its own nature deserves damnation and another to say it is damnable to all those persons in whom it is subjected The thing it self that is our corrupted nature or our nature of corruption does leave us in the state of separation from God by being unable to bear us to Heaven imperfection of nature can never carry us to the perfections of glory and this I conceive to be all that our Church intends for that in the state of nature we can only fall short of Heaven and be condemn'd to a poena damni is the severest thing that any sober person owns and this I say that Nature alone cannot bring us to God without the regeneration of the Spirit and the grace of God we can never go to Heaven but because this Nature was not spoil'd by Infants but by persons of reason and we are all admitted to a new Covenant of Mercy and Grace made with Adam presently after his fall that is even before we were born as much as we were to a participation of sin before we were born no man can perish actually for that because he is reconcil'd by this He that says every sin is damnable and deserves the anger of God says true but yet some persons that sin of mere infirmity are accounted by God in the rank of innocent persons So it is in this Article Concupiscence remains in the regenerate and yet concupiscence hath the nature of sin but it brings not condemnation These words explain the 〈◊〉 Original imperfection is such a thing as is even in the regenerate and it is of the nature of sin that is it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many but yet it is not daâ—â—ing because as it is subjected in unconsenting persons it loses its own natural venome and relation to guiltiness that is it may of it self in its abstracted nature be a sin and deserve Gods anger viz. in some persons in all them that consent to it but that which will always be in persons that shall never be damned that is in infants and regenerate shall 〈◊〉 damn them And this is the main of what I affirm And since the Church of England intended that Article against the Doctrine of the Pelagians I suppose I shall not be thought to recede from the spirit and sence of the Article though I use differing manners of expression because my way of explicating this question does most of all destroy the Pelagian Heresie since although I am desirous to acquit the dispensation of God and his Justice from my imputation or suspicion of wrong and am loth to put our sins upon the account of another yet I impute all our evils to the imperfections of our nature and the malice of our choice which does most of all demonstrate not only the necessity of Grace but also of Infant Baptism and then to accuse this Doctrine of Pelagianism or any newer name of Heresie will seem like impotency and weakness of spirit but there will be nothing of truth or learning in it And although this Article was penn'd according to the style of the Schools as they then did loâ—e to speak yet the hardest word in it is capable of such a sence as complies with the intendment of that whole sixth Chapter For though the Church of England professes her self fallible and consequently that all her truths may be peaceably improved yet I do think that she is not actually deceiv'd and also that divers eminently learned do consent in my sence of that Article However I am so truly zealous for her honour and peace that I wholly submit all that I say there or any where else to her most prudent judgment And though I may most easily be deceived yet I have given my reasons for what I say and desire to be tried by them not by prejudice and numbers and zeal and if any man resolves to understand the Article in any other sence than what I have now explicated all that I shall say is that it may be I cannot reconcile my Doctrine to his explication it is enough that it is consistent with the Article it self in its best understanding and compliance with the truth it self and the justification of God However he that explicates the Article and thinks it means as he says does all the honour he can to the Authority whose words if he does not understand yet the sanction
the burthen was great but the shoulder is weak and crushed and therefore was not able to bear it and therefore much less can it stand under a bigger load if the holy Precepts of the Gospel should prove so and we be assisted by no firmer supporters 16. For the nature and constitution of man is such that he cannot perpetually attend to any state of things Voluntas per momenta variatur quia solus Deus immutabilis variety and change inconstancy and repentance are in his very nature * If he be negligent he is soon tempted If he be watchful he is soon wearied * If he be not instructed he is exposed to every abuse * If he be yet he is ignorant of more than he knows may be consened by very many things and in what he knows or seems to know he is sometimes confident sometimes capricious curious and impertinent proud and contemptuous * The Commandments are instanc'd in things against our natural inclinations and are restraints upon our appetite and although a man may do it in single instances yet to act a part of perpetual violence and preternatural contentions is too hard and severe an expectation and the often unavoidable failings of men will shew how impossible it is It is as S. Hieromes expression is as if a man should hale a boat against the stream if ever he slacken his hand the vessel falls back and if ever we give way to our appetite in any of the forbidden instances we descend naturally and easily * Some vices are proportionable to a mans temper and there he falls pleasantly and with desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Aristotle That which is natural is sweet but that which is violent is troublesome to others he is indifferent but to them he is turn'd by every byass * If a man be morose he is apt to offend with fullenness and angry pretensions but if he be compliant and gentle he is easily cousened with fair entreaties * If he be alone he is sad and phantastick and woe to him that is alone If he be in company it will be very hard for him to go with them to the utmost limits of permission and not to step beyond it * No mans leisure is great enough to attend the inquiry after all the actions and particulars for which he is to be judged and he does many things which he considers not whether they be sins or no and when he does consider he often judges wrong * For some things there are no certain measures and there are very many constituent or intervening things and circumstances of things by which it is made impossible to give a certain judgement of the whole * Oftentimes a man is surpris'd and cannot deliberate for want of time sometimes he is amaz'd and wants order and distinction to his thoughts and cannot deliberate for want of powers * Sometimes the case is such that if a man determines it against his temporal interest he determines falsly and yet he thinks he does it safest and if he judges in compliance with his temporal regards he cannot be confident but that he was mov'd not by the prevailing reason but by prevailing passion * If the dispute be concerning degrees there is no certain measures to weigh them by and yet sometimes a degree does diversifie the kind and vertue and vice are but differing degrees of the same instance and the ways of sinning upon the stock of ignorance are as many as there are ignorances and degrees and parts and vicious causes and instances of it 17. Concerning our infirmities they are so many that we can no more account concerning the ways of error coming upon that stock than it can be reckoned in how many places a lame man may stumble that goes a long journey in difficult and uneven ways We have beginning infant strengths which are therefore imperfect because they can grow Crescere posse imperfectae rei signum est and when they are most confirm'd and full grown they are imperfect still When we can reckon all the things of chance then we have summ'd up the dangers and aptnesses of man to sin upon that one principle but so as they can they are summ'd up in the words of Epiphanius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The condition of our nature the inconstancy of our spirits the infirmity of our flesh the distraction of our senses are an argument to make us with confidence expect pardon and mercy from the loving kindness of the Lord according to the preaching of Truth the Gospel of Christ. 18. But besides all this the numbers of sin are not easily to be told the lines of account are various and changeable our opinions uncertain and we are affrighted from one into another and all changes from sin are not into vertue but more commonly into sin Obsessa mens hominis undique diaboli infestatione vallata vix occurrit singulis vix resistit si avaritia prostrata est exurgit libido And if we do not commit things forbidden yet the sins of omission are innumerable and undiscernable * Businesses intervene and visits are made and civilities to be rendred and friendly compliances to be entertain'd and necessities to be served and some things thought so which are not so and so the time goes away and the duty is left undone prayers are hindred and prayers are omitted and concerning every part of time which was once in our power no man living can give a fair account 19. This moral demonstration of the impossibility of perfect and exact obedience and innocence would grow too high if I should tell how easily our duties are sowr'd even when we think we walk wisely Severity is quickly turn'd into ungentleness love of children to indulgence joy to gayety melancholy to peevishness love of our wives to fondness liberties of marriage to licentiousness devotion to superstition austerity to pride feasting to intemperance Vrbanity to foolish jesting a free speech into impertinence and idle talking 20. There were no bottom of this consideration if we consider how all mankind sins with the tongue He that offends not in his tongue he is a perfect man indeed But experience and the following considerations do manifest that no man is so perfect For 21. Every passion of the Soul is a Spring and a shower a parent and a nurse to sin Our passions either mistake their objects or grow intemperate either they put too much upon a trifle or too little upon the biggest interest They are material and sensual best pleas'd and best acquainted with their own objects and we are to do some things which it is hard to be told how they can be in our own power We are commanded to be angry to love to hope to desire certain things towards which we cannot be so affected ever when we please A man cannot love or hate upon the stock and interest of a Commandment and yet these are parts of our duty To mourn and
have received our pardon for what we have not kept 33. II. As the law of Moses was not of it self impossible absolutely and naturally so neither are the Commandments of the Gospel For if we consider the particulars of Moses law they were such a burthen which the Jews themselves were loth to part withal because it was in the Moral part of it but a law of abstinence from evil to which fear and temporal promises was as they understood it a sufficient endearment But that burthen which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear was the sting of the law that it allowed no repentance for great crimes but the transgressor should die without mercy under two or three witnesses Now then since in the Gospel there is no such thing but there is an allowance of repentance this must needs be an easie yoke This only is to be added That the righteousness of the law was in abstinence from evil the righteousness of the Gospel is in that and in the doing all the affirmative Commandments of Christ. Now this being a new obligation brought also with it new abilities I mean the glorious promises of the Gospel which whosoever believes heartily will find himself able to do or suffer any thing for the enjoying of them and this is that which is taught us by S. Paul For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh God sending his own Son made it possible by the Spirit of Grace and by our spiritual conversation 34. III. There is a Natural possibility and a Moral there are abilities in every man to do any thing that is there commanded and he that can do well to day may do so to morrow in the nature of things this is true and since every sin is a breach of a law which a man might and ought to have kept it is naturally certain that when ever any man did break the Commandment he might have done otherwise In man therefore speaking naturally and of the Physical possibilities of things there is by those assistances which are given in the Gospel ability to keep the Commandments Evangelical But in the Moral sence that is when we consider what Man is and what are his strengths and how many his enemies and how soon he falls and that he forgets when he should remember and his faculties are asleep when they should be awake and he is hindred by intervening accidents and weakned and determin'd by superinduc'd qualities habits and necessities the keeping of the Commandments is morally impossible Now that this may also be taken off there is an abatement and an allowance made for this also Our infirmities are pitied our ignorances excused our unavoidable errors not imputed These in the law were imputable and it was lawful for the avenger of blood to kill a Man-slayer who sinn'd against his will if he could overtake him before he got to Sanctuary These I say in the law were imputable but they were not imputed Gods mercy took them off privately upon the accounts of his Mercy and a general Repentance But in the Gospel they are neither imputed nor imputable They were paid for before-hand and put upon the accounts of the Cross God winked at the times of your ignorance and The Lord had pity on me because I did it in ignorance said S. Paul and so Christ prayed Father forgive them for they know not what they do But ye did it ignorantly as did also your Rulers so S. Peter and upon that account he called them to accept of mercy And it is certain in reason that if God forgives those sins of malice of which we repent infinitely rather will he not impute what we cannot probably or possibly avoid For to do otherwise were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is a severity above the measures of humane sufferance and capacity to be punished for infirmities when they do not sin wilfully and therefore God who remembers and pities our infirmities will never put these into his account especially the holy Jesus having already paid our symbol Upon the account of these particulars it is certain God does not exact of us an impossible commandment that is not in the impossible measure for that is the meaning of those words of S. Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is impious to say the Commandments of the Spirit i. e. of the Gospel are impossible viz. in that sence in which they are exacted 35. But now to the second inquiry Since in justice God exacts not an impossible law how does it consist with his wisdom to impose what in justice he does not exact I answer 1. That it was necessary the Law in its latitude and natural extension should be given for if in the sanction any limits and lessenings had been described it had been a permission given to us to despise him in a certain degree and could in no sence have been proportionable to his infinity God commands us to love him with all our hearts and all our strengths that is always and with all that we can if less than this had been imposed and we commanded to love God but to a less and a certain proportion besides that it would not have been possible for us to understand when we did what was commanded it would have been either a direct lessening our opinion of God by tempting us to suppose no more love was due to him than such a limited measure or else a teaching us not to give him what was his due either of which must necessarily tend to Gods dishonour 36. II. The commanding us to do all that we can and that always though less be exacted does invite our greatest endeavours it entertains the faculties and labours of the best and yet despises not the meanest for they can endeavour too and they can do their best and it serves the end of many graces besides and the honour of some of the Divine Attributes 37. III. By this means still we are contending and pressing forwards and no man can say he does now comprehend or that his work is done till he die and therefore for ever he must grow in grace which could not be without the proposing of a Commandment the performance of which would for ever sufficiently imploy him for by this means the Commandments do every day grow more possible than at first A lustful person thinks it impossible to mortifie his lust but when he hath long contended and got the mastery it grows easie and at last in the progressions of a long piety sin is more impossible than duty is He that is born of God sinneth not neither indeed can he so S. John and Through Christ that strengthens me I can do all things saith S. Paul It is long before a man comes to it but the impossibility by degrees turns into a possibility and that into an easiness and at last into a necessity It is a trouble for some to commit a sin By
profited or obliged by our services no moments do thence accrew to his felicities and to challenge a reward of God or to think our best services can merit heaven is as if Galileo when he had found out a Star which he had never observed before and pleased himself in his own fancy should demand of the Grand Signior to make him king of Tunis for what is he the better that the studious man hath pleased himself in his own Art and the Turkish Empire gets no advantages by his new Argument * And this is so much the more material if we consider that the littleness of our services if other things were away could not countervail the least moment of Eternity and the poor Countrey man might as well have demanded of Cyrus to give him a Province for his handful of river water as we can expect of God to give us Heaven as a reward of our good works 22. XVI But although this rule relying upon such great and convincing grounds can abolish all proud expectations of reward from God as a debtor for our good works yet they ought not to destroy our modest confidence and our rejoycings in God who by his gracious promises hath not only obliged himself to help us if we pray to him but to reward us if we work For our God is merciful he rewardeth every man according to his work so said David according to the nature and graciousness of the work not according to their value and proper worthiness not that they deserve it but because God for the communication of his goodness was pleased to promise it Promissum quidem ex misericordiâ sed ex justitiâ persolvendum said S. Bernard Mercy first made the promise but justice pays the debt Which words were true if we did exactly do all that duty to which the reward was so graciously promised but where much is to be abated even of that little which was bound upon us by so glorious promises of reward there we can in no sence challenge Gods justice but so as it signifies equity and is mingled with the mercies of the chancery Gratis promisit gratis reddit So Ferus God promised freely and pays freely If therefore thou wilt obtain grace and favour make no mention of thy deservings And yet let not this slacken thy work but reinforce it and enlarge thy industry since thou hast so gracious a Lord who of his own meer goodness will so plentifully reward it 23. XVII If we fail in the outward work let it be so ordered that it be as little imputable to us as we can that is let our default not be at all voluntary but wholly upon the accounts of a pityable infirmity For the Law was a Covenant of Works such as they were but the mind could not make amends within for the defect without But in the Gospel it is otherwise for here the will is accepted for the fact in all things where the fact is not in our power But where it is there to pretend a will is hypocrisie Nequam illud verbum est benè vult nisi qui benè facit said the Comedian This rule is our measure in the great lines of duty in all negative Precepts and in the periods of the law of Christ which cannot pass by us without being observed But in the material and external instances of duty we may without our fault be disabled and therefore can only be supplied with our endeavours and desires But that is our advantage we thus can perform all Gods will acceptably For if we endeavour all that we can and desire more and pursue more it is accepted as if we had done all for we are accepted according to what a man hath and not according to what he hath not Unless we can neither endeavour nor desire we ought not to complain of the burthen of the Divine Commandments For to endeavour truly and passionately to desire and contend for more is obedience and charity and that is the fulfilling of the Commandments Matter for Meditation out of Scripture according to the former Doctrine The Old Covenant or the Covenant of Works IN that day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die Cursed in every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the law to do them And thou shalt write upon stones all the words of this law very plainly Thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day to the right hand or to the left But it shall come to pass if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes then shall all these curses come upon thee and overtake thee And if you will not be reformed by these things but will walk contrary unto me then will I also walk contrary unto you and will punish you yet seven times for your sins He that despised Moses law died without mercy under two or three witnesses The New Covenant or the Covenant of Grace WE are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God * To declare I say at this time his righteousness that he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus * Where is boasting then it is excluded by what law of works Nay but by the law of faith * Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit For as many as are led by the Spirit they are the sons of God * Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities because he maketh intercession for the Saints according to the will of God * And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God He that spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all how shall not he with him also freely give us all things Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect It is God that justifieth This is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days saith the Lord I will put my laws in their mind and write them in their hearts and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people all shall know me from the least to the greatest * For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more If any man be in Christ he is a new creature old things are past away all things are become new And all things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus
disliking of the thing with its consequents and effect and so far also it is a change of mind But it goes no further than so far to change the mind that it brings trouble and sorrow and such things which are the natural events of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas It is an affection incident to man not to God who cannot repent where although by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means an Accident or property of Man that is a quality in the general sence yet that it is properly a passion in the special sence was the sence of all men as Tertullian observes saying that the Heathens know Repentance to be passionem animi quandam the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Suidas a passion quae veniat de offensâ sententiae prioris coming from our being offended or troubled at our former course But Tertullian uses the Latine word of which I shall give account in the following periods 2. But when there was a difference made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the better word which does not properly signifie the sorrow for having done amiss but something that is noble◠than it but brought in at the gate of sorrow For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a godly sorrow that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the first beginning of Repentance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worketh this better Repentance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a repentance not to be repented of not to be sorrowed for a repentance that is unto salvation Sorrow may go before this but dwells not with it according to that of S. Chrysostome Medicinae hic locus non judicii non poenas sed peccatorum remissionem poenitentia tribuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word Repentance brings not pains but pardon with it for this is the place of medicine and remedy not of judgment or condemnation meaning that this Repentance is wholly salutary as tending to reformation and amendment But Tertullian made the observation more express In Graeco sono poenitentiae nomen non ex delicti confessione sed ex animi demutatione compositum est To repent among the Greeks signifies not a confession of our fault but the change of mind He speaks of the Grammaticall sence of the word for in the whole use of it it is otherwise 3. For however the Grammarians may distinguish them yet the words are used promiscuously for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes used in the bad sence and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the better repentance not often but sometimes it does The son that told his Father he would not work in his Vineyard afterwards was sorry for refusing and he went to work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the some Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye seeing were not troubled and sorrowful that ye might believe that is amend your fault 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in both places used for a salutary repentance And on the other side 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to signifie in the evil sence a state of misery without remedy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the Septuagint read that of Solomon The wicked man cometh to repentance that is to misery and sorrow So that there is nothing of usefulness which can be drawn from the Grammatical sence of these words They both signifie a change of mind and they both signifie a sorrow and they both are used for the same thing and indeed that will be the best use of them No man can be truly said to repent but he who being sorrowful for doing evil betakes himself to wiser courses So Phavorinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Repentance is a sense and compunction of the soul for those things which were done foolishly Sum Dea quae facti non factique exigo poenas Nempe ut poeniteat sic Metanoea vocor Repentance does exact punishment for evils done and good undone but besides this it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a conversion to that which is better So Aretas defines it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same with the former an eschewing evil and doing good 4. And thus the Holy Scriptures understand this word and this duty It is a whole change of state and life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a turning from sin and it is emphatically called by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a repentance from dead works that is a forsaking them with sorrow that ever we committed them And it is also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a conversion to God from darkness to light from the power of Satan unto God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a returning to sobriety the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Justin Martyr all signifying a departing from our follies and a changing to a better life And though sometimes to Repent is in Scripture taken for sorrow only or a being troubled that the fact is done yet it is called Repentance no otherwise than as alms is called Charity that is it is an effect of it a part or action or adjunct of the duty and state of Repentance which ought to be observed lest as it is too commonly one act be mistaken for the whole state and we account our selves perfect penitents if we have only wept a penitential shower which is also to be observed in the definitions which the Doctors give of it 5. Tertullian calls it a passion of the mind or grief for the offence of our former acts S. Austin calls it a revenge always punishing in it self that which it grieves to have committed These do only describe that part of repentance which is sometimes signified by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is nothing else but a godly sorrow the porch or beginnings of Repentance On the other side Lactantius describing Repentance gives only the Grammatical sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Agere autem poenitentiam nihil aliud est quà m profiteri affirmare se ulteriùs non peccaturum To repent saith he is nothing else but a profession and affirmation that he will sin no more which descriptions of Repentance are just as if we should say A man is a creature that speaks or laughs or that can learn to read These are effects of his nature but not the ingredients of a proper definition Sorrow and Revenge and holy purposes and protestations are but single acts of a returning and penitent man whereas Repentance is a whole state of a new life an intire change of the sinner with all its appendages and instruments of ministery 6. As the Greeks have so have the Latins also two words to signifie this duty Poenitentia and Resipiscentia and these have almost the same fate and the same usages with the other Poenitentia is used by the old Latin translation and is most tenaciously retained by all them who make the very life of Repentance to run into corporal austerities like the juice of luxuriant trees into irregular
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But when Christ had been preached all the obfirmation and obstinacy of mind by which they shut their eyes against that light all that was choice and interest or passion and was to be rescinded by Repentance But Conversion was the word indifferently used concerning the change both of Jews and Gentiles because they both abounded in iniquity and did need this change called by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a redemption from all iniquity by S. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a conversion from wickedness 10. In analogy and proportion to these Repentances and Conversions of Jews and Gentiles the Repentances of Christians may be called Conversion We have an instance of the word so used in the case of S. Peter When thou art converted strengthen thy brethren that is when thou art returned from thy folly and sin of denying the Lord do thou confirm thy brethren that they may not fall as thou hast done This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a conversion from vanity and impiety or injustice when a person of any evil life returns to his duty and his undertaking in Baptism from the unregenerate to the regenerate estate that is from habitual sin to habitual grace But the Repentances of good men for their sins of infirmity or the seldom interruptions of a good life by single falls is not properly Conversion But as the distance from God is from whence we are to retire so is the degree of our Conversion The term from whence is various but the term whither we go is the same All must come to God through Jesus Christ in the measures and strictness of the Evangelical holiness which is that state of Repentance I have been now describing which is A perfect abrenunciation of all iniquity and a sincere obedience in the faith of Jesus Christ which is the result of all the foregoing considerations and usages of words and is further manifested in the following appellatives and descriptions by which Repentance is signified and recommended to us in Scripture 11. I. It is called Reconciliation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We pray you in Christs stead to be reconciled to God that is to be friends with him no longer to stand in terms of distance for every habitual sinner every one that provokes him to anger by his iniquity is his enemy not that every sinner hates God by a direct hate but as obedience is love so disobedience is enmity or hatred by interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enemies in their mind by wicked works So S. Paul expresses it and therefore the reconciling of these is to represent them holy and unblameable and unreprovable in his sight Pardon of sins is the least part of this reconciliation Our sins and our sinfulness too must be taken away that is our old guilt and the remanent affections must be taken off before we are friends of God And therefore we find this reconciliation press'd on our parts we are reconciled to God not God to us For although the term be relative and so signifies both parts as conjunction and friendship and society and union do yet it pleased the Spirit of God by this expression to signifie our duty expresly and to leave the other to be supposed because if our parts be done whatsoever is on Gods part can never fail And 2. Although this reconciliation begins on Gods part and he first invites us to peace and gave his Son a Sacrifice yet Gods love is very revocable till we are reconciled by obedience and conformity 12. II. It is called Renewing and that either with the connotation of the subject renewed or the cause renewing The renewing of the Holy Ghost and the renewing of the mind or the spirit of the mind The word is exactly the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a change of mind from worse to better as it is distinguished from the fruits and effects of it So be renewed in your mind that is throw away all your foolish principles and non-sence propositions by which you use to be tempted and perswaded to sin and inform your mind with wise notices and sentences of God That ye put off concerning the old conversation the old man which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts and that ye put on the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness which is an excellent description of Repentance In which it is observable that S. Paul uses two words more to express the greatness and nature of this change and conversion It is 13. III. A new Creature The new Man Created in Righteousness for the state of Repentance is so great an alteration that in some sence it is greater than the Creation because the things created had in them no opposition to the power of God but a pure capacity obediential but a sinner hath dispositions opposite to the Spirit of Grace and he must unlearn much before he can learn any thing He must die before he can be born Nam quodcunque suis mutatum finibus exit Continuò hoc mors est illius quod fuit anté Lucret. Our sins the body of sin the spirit of uncleanness the old man must be abolished mortified crucified buried our sins must be laid away we must hate the garments spotted with the flesh and our garments must be whitened in the blood of the Lamb our hearts must be purged from an evil conscience purified as God is pure that is as S. Paul expresses it from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit denying or renouncing all ungodliness and worldly lusts 14. And then as the antithesis or consequent of this is when we have laid away our sin and renounced ungodliness We must live godly righteously and soberly in this present world we must not live either to the world or to our selves but to Christ Hic dies aliam vitam adfert alios mores postulat Our manner of life must be wholly differing from our former vanities so that the life which we now live in the flesh we must live by the faith of the Son of God that is according to his Laws and most holy Discipline 15. This is pressed earnestly upon us by those many Precepts of obedience to God to Christ to the holy Gospel to the Truth to the Doctrine of Faith * of doing good doing righteousness doing the truth * serving in the newness of the Spirit * giving our members up as servants of righteousness unto holiness * being holy in all conversations * following after peace with all men and holiness being followers of good works providing things hones◠in the sight of God and men abhorring evil and cleaving to that which is good * perfecting holiness in the fear of God to be perfect in every good work * being filled with the fruits of righteousness walking worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing being
of us from Heaven they that say that not every solution or breaking of them is exclusive from Heaven which are the words of Bellarmine and the doctrine of the Roman Church must even by the consequence of this very gloss of his fall under the danger of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the false teachers or the breakers of them by false interpretation However fearful is the malediction even to the breakers of the least 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I may use the words of Theophylact he shall be last in the resurrection and shall be thrown into Hell for that is the meaning of least in the Kingdom of Heaven fortasse ideò non erit in regno coelorum ubi nisi magni esse non possunt said S. Austin least is none at all for into Heaven none can enter but they which are great in Gods account 19. VII Lastly God hath given us the perpetual assistances of his Spirit the presence of his grace the ministery of his word the fear of judgments the endearment of his mercies the admonition of friends the severity of Preachers the aid of Books the apprehension of death the sense of our daily dangers our continual necessities and the recollection of our prayers and above all he hath promised Heaven to the obedient which is a state of blessings so great and infinite as upon the account of them it is infinitely reasonable and just if he shall exact of us every sin that is every thing which we can avoid 20. Upon this account it is that although wise and prudent men do not despise the continual endearments of an old friend yet in many cases God may and doth and from the rules and proper measures of humane friendship to argue up to a presumption of Gods easiness in not exacting our duty is a fallacious proceeding but it will deceive no body but our selves 21. II. Every sin is directly against Gods law and therefore is damnable and deadly in the accounts of the Divine justice one as well though not so grievously as another For though sins be differenc'd by greater and less yet their proportion to punishment is not differenc'd by Temporal and Eternal but by greater and less in that kind which God hath threatned So Origen Vnusquisque pro qualitate quantitate peccati diversam mulctae sententiam expendit Si parum est quod peccas ferieris damnâ— minuti ut Lucas scripsit ut verò Matthaeus quadrantis Veruntamen necesse est hoc ipsum quod eâ—estitisti debitor solvere Non enim inde exibis nisi minima quaeque persolveris Every one according to the quantity and quality of his sin must pay his fine but till he hath paid he shall not be loosed from those fearful prisons that is he shall never be loosed if he agree not before he comes thither The smallest offence is a sin and therefore it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transgression of the Law a violation of that band by which our obedience unites us unto God And this the holy Scripture signifies unto us in various expressions For though the several words are variously used in sacred and profane writers yet all of them signifie that even the smallest sin is a prevarication of the Holy laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Damascen calls sin which we render well by Transgression and even those words which in distinction signifie a small offence yet they also signifie the same with the greater words to shew that they all have the same formality and do the same displeasure or at least that by the difference of the words no difference of their natures can be regularly observed Sins against God only are by Phavorinus called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same word is also used for sin against our neighbours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thy brother sin against thee that is do thee injury and this is properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 injustice But Demosthenes distinguishes injustice from sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by voluntary and involuntary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that does wrong willingly is unjust he that does it unwillingly is a sinner 22. The same indistinction is observable in the other words of Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by S. Hierome used for the beginnings of sin Cum cogitatio tacita subrepit ex aliquâ— parte conniventibus nobis nec dum tamen nos impulit ad ruinam when a sudden thought invades us without our advertency and observation and hath not brought forth death as yet and yet that death is appendent to whatsoever it be that can be signified by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we may observe because the sin of Adam that called death upon all the world is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the Ephesian Gentiles S. Paul said they had been dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in trespasses and sins and therefore it cannot hence be inferred that such little obliquities or beginnings of greater sins are only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides the law not against it for it is at least the word hinders not but it may be of the same kind of malignity as was the sin of Adam And therefore S. Austin renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 delictum or offence and so do our Bibles And the same also is the case of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is attributed even to concupiscence or the beginnings of mischief by S. Paul and by S. Hierome but the same is used for the consummation of concupiscence in the matter of uncleanness by S. James Lust when it hath conceived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peccatum is the Latin word which when it is used in a distinct and pressed sence it is taken for the lesser sins and is distinguished from crimen Paulus Orosius uses it to signifie only the concupiscence or sinful thoughts of the heart and when it breaks forth to action he calls it a crime peccatum cogitatio concipit crimen verò non nisi actus ostendit and it was so used by the ancient Latins Peccatus it was called by them quasi pellicatus that inticing which is proper to uncleanness So Cicero in A. Gellius Nemo ita manifesto peccatu tenebatur ut cum impudens fuisset in facto tum impudentior videretur si negaret Thus the indistinction of words mingles all their significations in the same common notion and formality They were not sins at all if they were not against a Law and if they be they cannot be of their own nature venial but must be liable to that punishment which was threatned in the Law whereof that action is a transgression 23. II. The Law of God never threatens the justice of God never inflicts punishment but upon transgressors of his Laws the smallest offences are not only threatned but may be punished with death therefore
moved God to smite would also move him to forbear which were a strange Oeconomy The words therefore are not a reason of his forbearing but an aggravation of his kindness as if he had said Though man be continually evil yet I will not for all that any more drown the world for mans being so evil and so the Hebrews note that the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies although 49. But the great out-cry in this Question is upon confidence of the words of David Behold I was shapen in wickedness and in sin hath my mother conceived me To which I answer that the words are an Hebraism and signifie nothing but an aggrandation of his sinfulness and are intended for an high expression meaning that I am wholly and intirely wicked For the verification of which exposition there are divers parallel places in the holy Scriptures Thou wert my hope when I hanged yet upon my mothers breasts and The ungodly are froward even from their mothers womb as soon as they be born they go astray and speak lies which because it cannot be true in the letter must be an idiotism or propriety of phrase apt to explicate the other and signifying only a ready a prompt a great and universal wickedness The like to this is that saying of the Pharisees Thou wert altogether born in sin and dost thou teach us which phrase and manner of speaking being plainly a reproach of the poor blind man and a disparagement of him did mean only to call him a very wicked person but not that he had derived his sin originally and from his birth for that had been their own case as much as his and therefore S. Chrysostome explaining this phrase says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is as if they should say Thou hast been a sinner all thy life time To the same sence are those words of Job I have guided her the widow from my mothers womb And in this expression and severity of hyperbole it is that God aggravated the sins of his people Thou wast called a transgressor from the womb And this way of expressing a great state of misery we find us'd among the Heathen Writers for so Seneca brings in Oedipus complaining Infanti quoque decreta mors est Fata quis tam tristia sortitus unquam Videram nondum diem jam tenebar Mors me antecessit aliquis intra viscera Materna lethum praecocis fati tulit Sed numquid peccavit Something like S. Bernards Damnatus antequam natus I was condemn'd before I was born dead before I was alive and death seised upon me in my mothers womb Somebody brought in a hasty and a too forward death but did he sin also An expression not unlike to this we have in Lucian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pardon me that I was not born wicked or born to be wicked 2. If David had meant it literally it had not signified that himself was born in original sin but that his father and mother sinn'd when they begat him which the eldest son that he begat of Bathsheba for ought I know might have said truer than he in this sence And this is the exposition of Clemens Alexandrinus save only that by my mother he understands Eva 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though he was conceived in sin yet he was not in the sin peccatrix concepit sed non peccatorem she sinn'd in the conception not David And in the following words he speaks home to the main article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let them tell us where an infant did fornicate or how he who had done nothing could fall under the curse of Adam meaning so as to deserve the same evil that he did 3. If it did relate to his own person he might mean that he was begotten with that sanguine disposition and libidinous temper that was the original of his vile adultery and then though David said this truly of himself yet it is not true of all not of those whose temper is phlegmatick and unactive 4. If David had meant this of himself and that in regard of original sin this had been so far from being a penitential expression or a confessing of his sin that it had been a plain accusation of God and an excusing of himself As if he had said O Lord I confess I have sinn'd in this horrible murder and adultery but thou O God knowest how it comes to pass even by that fatal punishment which thou didst for the sin of Adam inflict on me and all mankind above 3000. years before I was born thereby making me to fall into so horrible corruption of nature that unless thou didst irresistibly force me from it I cannot abstain from any sin being most naturally inclin'd to all In this sinfulness hath my mother conceived me and that hath produc'd in me this sad effect Who would suppose David to make such a confession or in his sorrow to hope for pardon for upbraiding not his own folly but the decrees of God 5. But that David thought nothing of this or any thing like it we may understand by the preceding words which are as a preface to these in the objection Against thee only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight that thou mightest be justified in thy saying and clear when thou art judged He that thus acquits God cannot easily be supposed in the very next breath so fiercely to accuse him 6. To which also adde the following words which are a sufficient reproof of all strange sences in the other In sin hath my mother conceived me But loe thou requirest truth in the inward parts as if he had said Though I am so wicked yet thy laws are good and I therefore so much the worse because I am contrary to thy laws They require truth and sincerity in the soul but I am false and perfidious But if this had been natural for him so to be and unavoidable God who knew it perfectly well would have expected nothing else of him For he will not require of a stone to speak nor of fire to be cold unless himself be pleased to work a miracle to have them so 50. But S. Paul affirms that by nature we were the children of wrath True we were so when we were dead in sins and before we were quickned by the Spirit of life and grace We were so now we are not We were so by our own unworthiness and filthy conversation now we being regenerated by the Spirit of holiness we are alive unto God and no longer heirs of wrath This therefore as appears by the discourse of S. Paul relates not to our Original sin but to the Actual and of this sence of the word Nature in the matter of sinning we have Justin Martyr or whoever is the Author of the Questions and Answers ad Orthodoxos to be witness For answering those words of Scripture There is not any one clean who is born of a woman
say this may be a final event I find no warrant for that and think it only to be an intermedial event that is though Adam's sin left us there yet God did not leave us there but instantly gave us Christ as a remedy and now what in particular shall be the state of Unbaptized infants so dying I do not profess to know or teach because God hath kept it as a secret I only know that he is a gracious Father and from his goodness nothing but goodness is to be expected and that is since neither Scripture nor any Father till about Saint Augustine's time did teach the poor Babes could die not onely once for Adam's sin but twice and for ever I can never think that I do my duty to GOD if I think or speak any thing of him that seems so unjust or so much against his goodness And therefore although by Baptism or by the ordinary Ministery Infants are new born and rescued from the state of Adam's account which metonymically may be called a remitting of Original sin that is a receiving them from the punishment of Adam's sin or the state of evil whither in him they are devolved yet Baptism does but consider that grace which God gives in Jesus Christ and he gives it more ways than one to them that desire Baptism to them that die for Christianity and the Church even in Origen's time and before that did account the Babes that died in Bethlehem by the Sword of Herod to be Saints and I do not doubt but he gives it many ways that we know not of And therefore S. Bernard and many others do suppose that the want of Baptism is supplied by the Baptism of the H. Ghost To which purpose the 87 Epistle of S. Bernard is worth the reading But this I add that those who affirmed that Infants without actual Baptism could not be saved affirmed the same also of them if they wanted the H. Eucharist as is to be seen in Paulinus epigr. 6. The writer of Hypognosticon lib. 5. S. Augustin Hom. 10. Serm. 8. de verbis Apostoli 107 Epistle to Vitalis And since no Church did ever enjoyn to any Catechumen any Penance or Repentance for Original sin it seems horrible and unreasonable that any man can be damned for that for which no man is bound to repent SECT V. The Doctrine of Antiquity in this whole matter The summe of all is this 18. I. ORiginal Sin is Adam's sin imputed to us to many evil effects II. It brings death and the evils of this life III. Our evils and necessity being brought upon us bring in a flood of passions which are hard to be bridled or mortified IV. It hath left us in pure naturals disrobed of such aids extraordinary as Adam had V. It deprives us of all title to Heaven or supernatural happiness that is it neither hath in it strength to live a spiritual life nor title to a heavenly VI. It leaves in us our natural concupiscence and makes it much worse Thus far I admit and explicate this Article But all that I desire of the usual Propositions which are variously taught now adays is this I. Original sin is not an inherent evil not a sin properly but metonymically that is it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many a stain but no sin II. It does not destroy our liberty which we had naturally III. It does not introduce a natural necessity of sinning IV. It does not damn any Infant to the Eternal Pains of Hell And now how consonant my explication of the Article is to the first and best antiquity besides the testimonies I have already brought here concerning some parts of it will appear by the following authorities speaking to the other parts of it and to the whole Question S. Ignatius the Martyr in his Epistle to the Magnesians hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a man be a pious man He is a man of God if he be impious he is of the Devil not made so by nature but by his own choice and sentence by which words he excludes nature and affirms our natural liberty to be the cause of our good or evil that is we are in fault but not Adam so as we are And it is remarkable that Ignatius hath said nothing to the contrary of this or to infirm the force of these words and they who would fain have alledged him to contrary purposes cite him calling Adam's sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the old iniquity which appellative is proper enough but of no efficacy in this question Dionysius the Areopagite if he be the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy does very well explicate this Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When in the beginning humane nature foolishly fell from the state of good things which God gave it it was then entred into a life of passions and the end of the corruption of Death This sentence of his differs not from that of S. Chrysostome before alledged for when man grew miserable by Adam's fall and was disrobed of his aids he grew passionate and peevish and tempted and sick and died This is all his account of Adam's story and it is a very true one But the writer was of a later date not much before S. Austin's time as it is supposed but a learned and a Catholick believer 19. Concerning Justin Martyr I have already given this account that he did not think the liberty of choice impaired by Adam's sin but in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew he gives no account of Original sin but this that Christ was not crucified or born as if himself did need it but for the sake of Mankind which by Adam fell into death and the deception of the Serpent besides all that which men commit wickedly upon their own stock of impiety So that the effect of Adam's sin was death and being abused by the Devil for this very reason to rescue us from the effects of this deception and death and to redeem us from our impiety Christ was born and died But all this meddles not with any thing of the present Questions for to this all interests excepting the Pelagians and Socinians will subscribe It is material which is spoken by him or some under his name in the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is no man who is by nature born to sin and do wickedly but hath sinned and done wickedly But he is by nature born to sin who by the choice of his free-will is author to himself of doing what he will whether it be good or bad But an infant as being not indued with any such power it appears sufficiently that he is not by nature born to sin These words when they had been handled as men pleased and turned to such sences as they thought they could escape by at last they appear to be the words of one who understood nothing
as to agree with Scripture and reason and as may best glorifie God and that they require it I will not pretend to believe that those Doctors who first fram'd the Article did all of them mean as I mean I am not sure they did or that they did not but this I am sure that they fram'd the words with much caution and prudence and so as might abstain from grieving the contrary minds of differing men And I find that in the Harmony of confessions printed in Cambridge 1586 and allowed by publick Authority there is no other account given of the English confession in this Article but that every Person is born in sin and leadeth his life in sin and that no body is able truly to say his heart is clean That the most righteous person is but an unprofitable servant That the Law of God is perfect and requireth of us perfect and full obedience that we are able by no means to fulfill that Law in this worldly life that there is no mortal Creature which can be justified by his own deserts in God's sight Now this was taken out of the English Confession inserted in the General Apology written in the year 1562 in the very year the Articles were fram'd I therefore have reason to believe that the excellent men of our Church Bishops and Priests did with more Candor and Moderation opine in this Question and therefore when by the violence and noises of some parties they were forced to declare something they spake warily and so as might be expounded to that Doctrine which in the General Apology was their allowed sence However it is not unusual for Churches in matters of difficulty to frame their Articles so as to serve the ends of peace and yet not to endanger truth or to destroy liberty of improving truth or a further reformation And since there are so very many Questions and Opinions in this point either all the Dissenters must be allowed to reconcile the Article and their Opinion or must refuse her Communion which whosoever shall inforce is a great Schismatick and an Uncharitable Man This only is certain that to tye the Article and our Doctrine together is an excellent art of peace and a certain signification of obedience and yet is a security of truth and that just liberty of Understanding which because it is only God's subject is then sufficiently submitted to Men when we consent in the same form of words The Article is this Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam as the Pelagians do vainly talk 28. THE following of Adam that is the doing as he did is actual sin and in no sence can it be Original sin for that is as vain as if the Pelagians had said the second is the first and it is as impossible that what we do should be Adam's sin as it is unreasonable to say that his should be really and formally our sin Imitation supposes a Copy and those are two termes of a Relation and cannot be coincident as like is not the same But then if we speak of Original sin as we have our share in it yet cannot our imitation of Adam be it possibly it may be an effect of it or a Consequent But therefore Adam's sin did not introduce a necessity of sinning upon us for if it did Original sin would be a fatal curse by which is brought to pass not only that we do but that we cannot choose but follow him and then the following of Adam would be the greatest part of Original sin expresly against the Article 29. But it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every Man The fault vitium Naturae so it is in the Latine Copyes not a sin properly Non talia sunt vitia quae jam peccata dicenda sunt but a disease of the Soul as blindness or crookedness that is it is an imperfection or state of deficiency from the end whither God did design us we cannot with this nature alone go to Heaven for it having been debauch'd by Adam and disrobed of all its extraordinaries and graces whereby it was or might have been made fit for Heaven it is returned to its own state which is perfect in its kind that is in order to all natural purposes but imperfect in order to supernatural whither it was design'd The case is this The eldest Son of Craesus the Lydian was born dumb and by the fault of his Nature was unfit to govern the Kingdom therefore his Father passing him by appointed the Crown to his younger Brother But he in a Battail seeing his Father in danger to be slain in Zeal to save his Fathers life strain'd the ligatures of his tongue till that broke which bound him by returning to his speech he returned to his title We are born thus imperfect unfit to raign with God for ever and can never return to a title to our inheritance till we by the grace of God be redintegrate and made perfect like Adam that is freed from this state of imperfection by supernatural aides and by the grace of God be born again Corruption This word is exegetical of the other and though it ought not to signifie the diminution of the powers of the soul not only because the powers of the soul are not corruptible but because if they were yet Adams sin could not do it since it is impossible that an act proper to a faculty should spoil it of which it is rather perfective and an act of the will can no more spoil the will than an act of understanding can lessen the understanding Yet this word Corruption may mean a spoiling or disrobing our Nature of all its extraordinary investitures that is supernatural gifts and graces a Comparative Corruption so as Moses's face when the light was taken from it or a Diamond which is more glorious by a reflex ray of the Sun when the light was taken off falls into darkness and yet loses nothing of its Nature But Corruption relates to the body not to the soul and in this Article may very properly and aptly be taken in the same sence as it is used by S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. The body is sown in Corruption that is in all the effects of its mortality and this indeed is a part of Original sin or the effect of Adams sin it introduc'd Natural Corruption or the affections of mortality the solemnities of death for indeed this is the greatest parth of Original sin Fault and Corruption mean the Concupiscence and Mortality Of the Nature of every man This gives light to the other and makes it clear it cannot be in us properly a sin for sin is an affection of persons not of the whole Nature for an Universal cannot be the subject of circumstances and particular actions and personal proprieties as humane Nature cannot be said to be drunk or to commit adultery now because sin is an action or omission and it is made up of many particularities it cannot be
temptation but he offends God and then how we should understand S. James's rule that we should count it all joy when we enter into temptation is beyond my reach and apprehension The Natural inclination hath in it nothing moral and g. as it is good in Nature so it is not ill in manners the supervening consent or dissent makes it morally good or evil 34. In every person born into the world it deserveth Gods wrath and damnation Viz. When it is so consented to when it resists and overcomes the spirit of grace For we being devested of the grace given to the first Adam are to be renewed by the spirit of grace the effect of the second Adam which grace when we resist we do as Adam did and reduce our selves back into the state where Adam left us That was his sin and not ours but this is our sin and not his both of them deserve Gods wrath and damnation but by one he deserved it and by the other we deserve it But then it is true that this corrupted Nature deserves Gods wrath but we and Adam deserve not in the same formality but in the same material part we do He left our Nature naked and for it he deserved Gods wrath if we devest our Nature of the new grace we return to the same state of Nature but then we deserve Gods wrath so that still the object of Gods wrath is our mere Nature so as left by Adam but though he sinned in the first disrobing and we were imperfect by it yet we sin not till the second disrobing and then we return to the same imperfection and make it worse But I consider that although some Churches in their confessions express it yet the Church of England does not they add the word Eternal to Damnation but our Church abstains from that therefore Gods wrath and damnation can signifie the same that damnation does in S. Paul all the effects of Gods anger Temporal Death and the miseries of mortality was the effect of Adams sin and of our being reduc'd to the Natural and Corrupted or worsted state Or secondly they may signifie the same that hatred does in S. Paul and in Malachi Esau have I hated that is lov'd him less or did not give him what he was born to he lost the primogeniture and the Priesthood and the blessing So do we naturally fall short of Heaven This is hatred or the wrath of God and his Judgment upon the sin of Adam to condemn us to a state of imperfection and misery and death and deficiency from supernatural happiness all which I grant to be the effect of Adams sin and that our imperfect Nature deserves this that is it can deserve no better 35. And this infection of Nature Viz. This imperfection not any inherent quality that by contact pollutes the relatives and descendants but this abuse and reproach of our Nature this stain of our Nature by taking off the supernatural grace and beauties put into it like the cutting off the beards of Davids Embassadors or stripping a man of his robe and turning him abroad in his natural shame leaving him naked as Adam and we were But the word infection being metaphorical may aptly signifie any thing that is analogical to it and may mean a Natural habitude or inclination to forbidden instances But yet it signifies a very great evil for in the best Authors to be such by Nature means an aggravation of it So Carion in Aristophanes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This man is very miserable or miserable by Nature and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do you believe me to be such a man by Nature that I can speak nothing well 36. Doth remain yea in them that are regenerated That is all the baptized and unbaptized receive from Adam nothing but what is inclined to forbidden instances which is a principle against which and above which the spirit of God does operate For this is it which is called the lust of the flesh for so it follows whereby the lust of the flesh that is the desires and pronenesses to Natural objects which by Gods will came to be limited order'd and chastis'd curb'd and restrain'd 37. Called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here it is plain that the Church of England though she found it necessary to declare something in the fierce contention of the time in order to peace and unity of expression yet she was not willing too minutely to declare and descend to the particulars on either side and therefore she was pleas'd to make use of the Greek word of the sence of which there were so many disputes and recites the most usual redditions of the word 38. Which some do expound the wisdom some the sensuality some the affection some the desire of the flesh is not subject to the law of God These several expositions reciting several things and the Church of England reciting all indefinitely but definitely declaring for none of them does only in the generality affirm that the flesh and spirit are contrary principles that the flesh resists the law of God but the spirit obeys it that is by the flesh alone we cannot obey Gods law naturally we cannot become the sons of God and heirs of Heaven but it must be a new birth by a spiritual regeneration The wisdom of the flesh that is Natural and secular principles are not apt dispositions to make us obedient to the law of God Sensuality that signifies an habitual lustfulness Desires signifie actual Lustings Affections signifie the Natural inclination now which of these is here meant the Church hath not declar'd but by the other words of the Article it is most probable She rather inclines to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by desires and sensuality rather than by affection or wisdom though of these also in their own sence it is true to affirm that they are not subject to the law of God there being some foolish principles which the flesh and the world is apt to entertain which are hindrances to holiness and the affection that is inclination to some certain objects being that very thing which the laws of God have restrained more or less in several periods of the world may without inconvenience to the Question be admitted to expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 39. And although there is no condemnation to them that believe and are baptized That is this concupiscence or inclination to forbidden instances is not imputed to the baptized nor to the regenerate that is when the new principle of grace and of the spirit is put into us we are reduced to as great a condition and as certain an order and a capacity of entring into Heaven as Adam was before his fall for then we are drawn from that mere natural state where Adam left us and therefore although these do die yet it is but the condition of nature not the punishment of the sin For Adams sin brought in Death and baptism and regeneration does not hinder
succession were all circumcised and no arguments no authority could hinder them And for their fear it only produc'd caution and sneaking from the face of men and both together set them on work to corrupt the spirit of the law by expositions too much according to the letter so that by this means their natural desires their lustings and concupiscence were not cured 7. For as Lactantius brought in the Heathen complaining so does S. Paul bring in the Jew That which I do I allow not for what I would that I do not but what I hate that I do I say this is the state of a man under the law a man who is not regenerate and made free by the Spirit of Christ that is a man who abides in the infirmities of nature of which the law of nature warn'd him first and the superinduc'd law of God warn'd him more but there was not in these Covenants or Laws sufficient either to endear or to secure obedience they did not minister strength enough to conquer sin to overthrow its power to destroy the kingdom and reign of sin this was reserv'd for the great day of triumph it was the glory of the Gospel the power of Christ the strength of the Spirit which alone was able to do it and by this with its appendages that is the pardon of sin and a victory over it a conquest by the prevailing and rule of the Spirit by this alone the Gospel is the most excellent above all the covenants and states and institutions of the world 8. But then the Christian must not complain thus if he be advanced into the secrets of the Kingdom if he be a Christian in any thing beyond the name he cannot say that sin gives him laws that it reigns in his mortal body that he is led captive by Satan at his will that he sins against his will frequently and habitually and cannot help it But so it is men do thus complain and which is worse they make this to be their excuse and their incouragement If they have sinn'd foully they say It is true but it is not I but sin that dwelleth in me For that which I do I allow not for what I would that do I not and what I hate that do I. And if they be tempted to a sin they cannot be disswaded from it or incouraged to a noble and pertinacious resistance because they have this in excuse ready To will is present with me but how to perform that which is good I find not For the good which I would I do not but the evil which I would not that I do That is it is my infirmity give me leave to do it I am the child of God for all my sin for I do it with an unwilling willingness I shall do this always and shall never be quit of this tyranny of sin It was thus with S. Paul himself and I ought not to hope to be otherwise than he and a person more free from sin We find in the life of Andronicus written by Nicetas Choniates the same pretence made in excuse for sin they could not help it and we find it so in our daily experience and the thing it self warranted by many Interpreters of Scripture who suppose that S. Paul in the seventh Chapter to the Romans from the fourteenth verse to the end describes his own state of infirmity and disability or which is all one the state of a regenerate man that it is no other but an ineffective striving and strugling against sin a contention in which he is most commonly worsted and that this striving is all that he can shew of holiness to be a testimony of his regeneration SECT II. 9. HOW necessary it is to free the words of S. Paul from so dangerous a sence we may easily believe if we consider that to suppose a man who is regenerate by the Spirit of Christ to be still a slave under sin and within its power and that he fain would but cannot help it is very injurious to the power of Christ and the mightiness of the spirit of grace when all its effect is only said to be that it strives but can do nothing that is sin abounds more than grace and the man that is redeemed by Christ is still unredeem'd and a captive under sin and Satan this is not only an incouragement of evil life but a reproach and scorn cast upon the holy Spirit It is verbum dictum contrae Spiritum sanctum a word spoken against the holy Ghost And as S. Austin calls it it is tuba hostis non nostra unde ille incitetur non unde vincatur the Devils trumpet to encourage him in his war against poor mankind but by this means he shall never be overcome And therefore he gives us caution of it for speaking of these words The good which I would that do I not but the evil that I would not that I do advises thus Lectio Divina quae de Apostoli Pauli epistolâ recitata est quotiescunque legitur timendum est ne malè intellecta det hominibus quaerentibus occasionem When ever these words of S. Paul are read we must fear lest the misunderstanding of them should minister an occasion of sin to them that seek it For men are prone to sin and scarce restrain themselves When therefore they hear the Apostle saying I do not the good which I would but I do the evil which I hate they do evil and as it were displeasing themselves because they do it think themselves like the Apostle In pursuance of this caution I shall examine the expositions which are pretended 10. I. These words I do not the good which I would but I do the evil which I hate are not the words or character of a regenerate person in respect of actual good or bad A regenerate man cannot say that he does frequently or habitually commit the sin that he hates and is against his conscience 1. Because no man can serve two Masters if he be a servant of sin he is not a servant of the Spirit No man can serve Christ and Belial If therefore he be brought into captivity to the law of sin he is the servant of sin and such was he whom S. Paul describes in this Chapter Therefore this person is not a servant of Christ He that is a servant of righteousness is freed from sin and he who is a servant of sin is not a servant of but freed from righteousness A regenerate person therefore is a servant of the Spirit and so cannot at the same time be a servant or a slave and a captive under sin 11. II. When the complaint is made I do the evil which I hate the meaning is I do it seldom or I do it commonly and frequently If it means I do it seldom then a man cannot use these words so well as the contrary he can say The good which I would I do regularly
excellency of the Divine grace and S. Austin needed not to have been put to his shifts in this Question it is considerable that his first Exposition had done his business better For if these words of S. Paul be as indeed they are to be expounded of an unregenerate man one under the law but not under grace nothing could more have magnified Gods grace than that an unregenerate person could not by all the force of nature nor the aids of the law nor the spirit of fear nor temporal hopes be redeem'd from the slavery and tyranny of sin and that from this state there is no redemption but by the Spirit of God and the grace of the Lord Jesus which is expresly affirmed and proved by S. Paul if you admit this sence of the words And therefore Irenaeus who did so cites these words to the same effect viz. for the magnifying the grace of God Ipse Dominus erat qui salvabat eos quia per semetipsos non habebant salvari Et propter hoc Paulus infirmitatem hominis annuncians ait Scio enim quoniam non habitat in carne meâ bonum significans quoniam non à nobis sed à Deo est bonum salutis Et iterum Miser ego homo quis me liberabit de corpore mortis hujus Deinde infert liberatorem Gratia Jesu Christi Domini nostri S. Paul's complaint shews our own infirmity and that of our selves we cannot be saved but that our salvation is of God and the grace of our Redeemer Jesus Christ. But whatever S. Austins design might be in making the worse choice it matters not much only to the interpretation it self I have these considerations to oppose 19. I. Because the phrase is insolent and the exposition violent to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by concupiscere to do is more than to desire factum dictum concupitum are the several kinds and degrees of sinning assigned by S. Austin himself and therefore they cannot be confounded and one made to expound the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also used here by the Apostle which in Scripture signifies sometimes to sin habitually never less than actually and the other word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies perficere patrare to finish the act at least or to do a sin throughly and can in no sence be reasonably expounded by natural ineffective and unavoidable desires And it is observable that when S. Austin in prosecution of this device is to expound those words to will is present with me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to perform what is good I find not he makes the word to signifie to do it perfectly which is as much beyond as the other sence of the same word is short What I do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I approve not Therefore the man does not do his sin perfectly he does the thing imperfectly for he does it against his conscience and with an imperfect choice but he does the thing however So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie to do the good imperfectly the action it self only for such was this mans impotency that he could not obtain power to do even imperfectly the good he desir'd The evil he did though against his mind but the good he could not because it was against the law of sin which reigned in him But then the same word must not to serve ends be brought to signifie a perfect work and yet not to signifie so much as a perfect desire 20. II. The sin which S. Paul under another person complains of is such a sin as did first deceive him and then slew him but concupiscence does not kill till it proceeds further as S. James expresly affirms that concupiscence when it hath conceived brings forth sin and sin when it is finished brings forth death which is the just parallel to what S. Paul says in this very Chapter The passions of sins which were by the law did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death peccatum perpetratum when the desires are acted then sin is deadly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the passions or first motions of sin which come upon us nobis non volentibus nec scientibus whether we will or no these are not imputed to us unto death but are the matter of vertue when they are resisted and contradicted but when they are consented to and delighted in then it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sin in conception with death and will proceed to action unless it be hindred from without and therefore it is then the same sin by interpretation Adulterium cordis so our blessed Saviour called it in that instance the adultery of the heart but till it be an actual sin some way or other it does not bring forth death 21. III. It is an improper and ungrammatical manner of speaking to say Nolo concupiscere or Volo non concupiscere I will lust or I will not lust i. e. I will or I will not desire or will For this lust or first motions of desire are before an act of will the first act of which is when these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these motions and passions are consented to or rejected These motions are natural and involuntary and are no way in our power but when they are occasion'd by an act of the Will collaterally and indirectly or by applying the proper incentives to the faculty Vellem non concupiscere every good man must say I would fain be free from concupiscence but because he cannot it is not subject to his Will and he cannot say volo I will be free and therefore S. Paul's Volo and Nolo are not intended of Concupiscence or desires 22. IV. The good which S. Austin says the Apostle fain would but could not perfect or do it perfectly is Non concupiscere not to have concupiscence Volo non perficio but Concupiscere is but velle it is not so much and therefore cannot be more So that when he says to will is present with me he must mean to desire well is present with me but to do this I find not that is if S. Austins interpretation be true though I do desire well yet I do lust and do not desire well for still concupisco I lust and I lust not I have concupiscence and I have it not which is a contradiction 23. Many more things might be observed from the words of the Apostle to overthrow this exposition but the truth when it is proved will sufficiently reprove what is not true and therefore I shall apply my self to consider the proper intention and design of the Apostle in those so much mistaken periods SECT IV. 24. COncerning which these things are to be cleared upon which the whole issue will depend 1. That S. Paul speaks not in his own person as an Apostle or a Christian a man who is regenerate but in the person of a Jew one under the law one that is not regenerate 2. That
the tenure of death Here then are three Combatants the Flesh the Conscience the Spirit The flesh endeavours to subject the man to the law of sin the other two endeavour to subject him to the law of God The flesh and the conscience or mind contend but this contention is no sign of being regenerate because the Flesh prevails most commonly against the Mind where there is nothing else to help it the man is still a captive to the law of sin But the Mind being worsted God sends in the auxiliaries of the Spirit and when that enters and possesses that overcomes the flesh it rules and gives laws But as in the unregenerate the Mind did strive though it was over-power'd yet still it contended but ineffectively for the most part so now when the Spirit rules the flesh strives but it prevails but seldom it is over-powered by the Spirit Now this contention is a sign of regeneration when the flesh lusteth against the Spirit not when the flesh lusteth against the mind or conscience For the difference is very great and highly to be remark'd And it is represented in two places of S. Pauls Epistles The one is that which I have already explicated in this Chapter I consent to the law of God according to the inner man But I see another law in my members fighting against the law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin that is in my members where there is a redundancy in the words but the Apostle plainly signifies that the law of sin which is in his members prevails that is sin rules the man in despite of all the contention and reluctancy of his conscience or the law of his mind So that this strife of flesh and conscience is no sign of the regenerate because the mind of a man is in subordination to the flesh of the man sometimes willingly and perfectly sometimes unwillingly and imperfectly 32. I deny not but the mind is sometimes called Spirit and by consequence improperly it may be said that even in these men their spirit lusteth against the flesh That is the more rational faculties contend against the brute parts reason against passion law against sin Thus the word Spirit is taken for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the inner man the whole mind together with its affections Mat. 26.4 and Acts 19.21 But in this Question the word Spirit is distinguished from Mind and is taken for the mind renewed by the Spirit of God and as these words are distinguished so must their several contentions be remark'd For when the mind or conscience and the flesh fight the flesh prevails but when the Spirit and the flesh fight the Spirit prevails And by that we shall best know who are the litigants that like the two sons of Rebecca strive within us If the flesh prevails then there was in us nothing but law of the mind nothing but the conscience of an unregenerate person I mean if the flesh prevails frequently or habitually But if the Spirit of God did rule us if that principle had possession of us then the flesh is crucified it is mortified it is killed and prevails not at all but when we will not use the force and arms of the Spirit but it does not prevail habitually not frequently or regularly or by observation This is clearly taught by those excellent words of S. Paul which as many other periods of his Epistles have had the ill luck to be very much misunderstood This I say then walk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh so that ye cannot that ye do not or may not do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things that ye would But if ye be led by the Spirit ye are not under the law The word in the Greek may either signifie duty or event Walk in the Spirit and fulfil not or ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh If we understand it in the Imperative sence then it is exegetical of the former words He that walks in the Spirit hoc ipso does not fulfil the lusts of the flesh To do one is not to do the other whoever fulfils the lusts of the flesh and is rul'd by that law he is not ruled by the grace of Christ he is not regenerate by the Spirit But the other sence is the best reddition of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he had said Walk in the Spirit and then the event will i◠that the flesh shall not prevail over you or give you laws you shall not then fulfil the lusts thereof And this is best agreeable to the purpose of the Apostle For having exhorted the Galatians that they should not make their Christian liberty a pretence to the flesh as the best remedy against their enemy the flesh he prescribes this walking in the Spirit which is a certain deletery and prevalency over the flesh And the reason follows for the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh so that ye cannot do the things that ye would that is though ye be inclined to and desirous of satisfying your carnal desires yet being under the Empire and conduct of the Spirit ye cannot do those desires the Spirit over-rules you and you must you will contradict your carnal appetites For else this could not be as the Apostle designs it a reason of his exhortation For if he had meant that in this contention of flesh and Spirit we could not do the good things that we would then the reason had contradicted the proposition For suppose it thus Walk in the Spirit and fulfil not the lusts of the flesh For the flesh and the Spirit lust against each other so that ye cannot do the good ye would This I say is not sence for the latter part contradicts the former For this thing that the flesh hinders us from doing the things of the Spirit is so far from being a reason why we should walk in the Spirit that it perfectly discourages that design and it is to little purpose to walk in the Spirit if this will not secure us against the domineering and tyranny of the flesh But the contrary is most clear and consequent If ye walk in the Spirit ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh for though the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and would fain prevail yet it cannot for the Spirit also lusteth against the flesh and is stronger so that ye may not or that ye do not or that ye cannot for any of these readings as it may properly render the words of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so are not against the design of the Apostle do what ye otherwise would fain do and therefore if ye will walk in the Spirit ye are secured against the flesh 33. The result is this 1. An impious profane person sins without any contention that is with a
by ignorance or inadvertency The unregenerate sins unwillingly too but it is by reason of the dominion and rule that sin bears over him but still this difference distinguishes them in the event of things that when it comes to the question whether sin shall be done or no the one wills and the other wills not though it may happen that the consent or dissent respectively may be with the same unwillingness by reason of the contention and strife from the adverse though weaker party The unregenerate man may be unwilling to obey sin but he obeys it for all that and the unwillingness is a sign of the greater slavery but there can be no sign of his regeneration but by not obeying the sin in the day of its own power and temptation A servant is still a servant whether he obeys with or against his will His servants we are to whom we obey saith S. Paul all therefore that is to be considered in the Question of regeneration is whether the man obeys or not obeys for whether he be willing or unwilling is not here considerable Let no man therefore flatter himself that he is a regenerate person because though he is a servant to sin and acts at the command of his lust and cannot resist in the evil day or stand the shock of a temptation yet he finds an unwillingness within him and a strife against sin Hugo de S. Victore or else S. Austin in the Book de continentiâ gave beginning or countenance to this error Hanc pugnam non experiuntur in semetipsis nisi bellatores virtutum debellatorésque vitiorum This fight none find in themselves but they that fight on vertues side and destroy vice Which words though something crudely set down and so not true yet are explicable by the following period Non expugnat concupiscentiae malum nisi continentiae bonum only holy and continent persons do overcome their concupiscence and in that sence it is true Only the regenerate feel this fight which ends in victory But he whose contention ends in sin and after a brave on-set yields basely frequently I mean or habitually every such person is a servant of sin and therefore not a servant of the spirit but free from that is not rul'd by the law of righteousness And this is so certain that this unwillingness to sin which ends in obeying it is so far from being a note of a regenerate person that it is evidently true that no man can come from the servitude or slavery of sin but the first step of his going from it is the sense and hatred of his fetters and then his desire of being freed but therefore he is not free because he complains of his bands and finds them heavy and intolerable and therefore seeks for remedy For if an unregenerate person did always sin willingly that is without this reluctancy and strife within and the regenerate did sin as infallibly but yet sore against his will then the regenerate person were the verier slave of the two for he that obeys willingly is less a slave than he that obeys in spight of his heart Libertatis servaveris umbram Si quicquid jubeare velis He that delights in his fetters hath at least the shadow and some of the pleasure of liberty but he hath nothing of it who is kept fast and groans because his feet are hurt in the stocks and the iron entreth into his soul. It was the sad state and complaint of the Romans when by the iniquity of war and the evil success of their armies they were forc'd to entertain their bondage tot rebus iniquis Paeruimus victi venia est haec sola pudoris Degenerìsque metus nil jam potuisse negari It was a conquest that gave them laws and their ineffective strugling and daily murmurs were but ill arguments of their liberty which were so great demonstrations of their servitude 37. III. An unregenerate man may not only will and desire to do Natural or Moral good things but even Spiritual and Evangelical that is not only that good which he is taught by natural reason or by civil sanctions or by use and experience of things but even that also which is only taught us by the Spirit of grace For if he can desire the first much more may he desire the latter when he once comes to know it because there is in spiritual good things much more amability they are more perfective of our mind and a greater advancer of our hopes and a security to our greatest interest Neither can this be prejudic'd by those words of S. Paul The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit for they are foolishness unto him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned For the natural man S. Paul speaks of is one unconverted to Christianity the Gentile Philosophers who relied upon such principles of nature as they understood but studied not the Prophets knew not of the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles nor of those excellent verifications of the things of the Spirit and therefore these men could not arrive at spiritual notices because they did not go that way which was the only competent and proper instrument of finding them Scio incapacem te Sacramenti impie Non posse caecis mentibus mysterium Haurire nostrum They that are impious and they that go upon distinct principles neither obeying the proposition nor loving the Commandment they indeed viz. remaining in that indisposition cannot receive that is entertain him And this is also the sence of the words of our blessed Saviour The world cannot receive him that is the unbelievers such who will not be perswaded by arguments Evangelical But a man may be a spiritual man in his notices and yet be carnal in his affections and still under the bondage of sin Such are they of whom S. Peter affirms it is better they had never known the way of righteousness than having known it to fall away Such are they of whom S. Paul says They detain the truth in unrighteousness Now concerning this man it is that I affirm that upon the same account as any vicious man can commend vertue this man also may commend holiness and desire to be a holy man and wishes it with all his heart there being the same proportion between his mind and the things of the Spirit as between a Jew and the Moral Law or a Gentile and Moral vertue that is he may desire it with passion and great wishings But here is the difference A regenerate man does what the unregenerate man does but desire 38. IV. An unregenerate man may leave many sins which he is commanded to forsake For it is not ordinarily possible that so perfect a conviction as such men may have of the excellency of religion should be in all instances and periods totally ineffective Something they will give to reputation something to fancy something to fame something to peace something
faith without charity dead and ineffective A working faith and a working prayer are the great instruments and the great exercise and the great demonstration of holiness and Christian perfection Children can sit down in a storm or in a danger and weep and die but men can labour against it and struggle with the danger and labour for that blessing which they beg Thou dost not desire it unless thou wilt labour for it He that sits still and wishes had rather have that thing than be without it but if he will not use the means he had rather lose his desire than lose his ease That is scarce worth having that is not worth labouring 76. XI In all contentions against sin and infirmity remember that what was done yesterday may be done to day and by the same instruments by which then you were conqueror you may also be so in every day of temptation The Italian General that quitted his vanity and his imployment upon the sight of one that died suddenly might upon the same consideration actually applied and fitted to the fancy at any time resist his lust And therefore Epictetus gives it in rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let death be always before thy eyes and then thou shalt never desire any base or low thing nor desire any thing too much That is the perpetual application of so great a consideration as is death is certainly the greatest endearment of holiness and severity And certain it is that at some time or other the greatest part of Christians have had some horrible apprehensions of Hell of Death and consequent Damnation and it hath put into them holy thoughts and resolutions of piety and if ever they were in a severe sickness and did really fear death they may remember with how great a regret they did then look upon their sins and then they thought Heaven a considerable interest and Hell a formidable state and would not then have committed a sin for the purchase of the world Now every man hath always the same arguments and endearments of piety and religion Heaven and Hell are always the same considerable things and the truth is the same still but then they are considered most and therefore they prevail most and this is a demonstration that the arguments themselves are sufficient and would always do the work of grace for us if we were not wanting to our selves It is impossible that any man can be mov'd by any argument in the world or any interest any hope or any fear who cannot be moved by the consideration of Heaven and Hell But that which I observe is this that the argument that wisely and reasonably prevail'd yesterday can prevail to day unless thou thy self beest foolish and unreasonable 77. XII If a wicked man sins it is never by a pitiable or pardonable infirmity but from a state of death that it proceeds or will be so imputed and it is all one as if it did But if a good man sins he hath the least reason to pretend infirmity for his excuse because he hath the strengths of the Spirit and did master sin in its strengths and in despight of all its vigorousness and habit and therefore certainly can do so much rather when sin is weak and grace is strong The result of which consideration is this That no man should please himself in his sin because it is a sin of infirmity He that is pleased with it because he thinks it is indulg'd to him sins with pleasure and therefore not of infirmity for that is ever against our will and besides our observation No sin is a sin of infirmity unless we hate it and strive against it He that hath gotten some strength may pretend some infirmity But he that hath none is dead 78. XIII Let no man think that the proper evil of his age or state or of his Nation is in the latitude and nature of it a sin of a pardonable infirmity The lusts of youth and the covetousness or pride of old age and the peevishness of the afflicted are states of evil not sins of infirmity For it is highly considerable that sins of infirmity are but single ones There is no such thing as a state of a pardonable infirmity If by distemper of the body or the vanity of years or the evil customs of a Nation a vice does creep upon and seise on the man it is that against which the man ought to watch and pray and labour it is a state of danger and temptation But that must not be called infirmity which corrupts Nations and states of life but that only which in single instances surprises even a watchful person when his guards are most remiss 79. XIV Whatsoever sin comes regularly or by observation is not to be excused upon the pretence of infirmity but is the indication of an evil habit Therefore never admit a sin upon hopes of excuse for it is certain no evil that a man chuses is excusable No man sins with a pardon about his neck But if the sin comes at a certain time it comes from a certain cause and then it cannot be infirmity for all sins of infirmity are sins of chance irregular and accidental 80. XV. Be curious to avoid all proverbs and propositions or odd sayings by which evil life is incouraged and the hands of the Spirit weakned It is strange to consider what a prejudice to a mans understanding of things is a contrary proverb Can any good thing come out of Galilee And when Christ cometh no man knoweth whence he is Two or three proverbs did in despight of all the miracles and holy doctrines and rare example of Christ hinder many of the Jews from believing in him The words of S. Paul misunderstood and worse applied have been so often abused to evil purposes that they have almost passed into a proverbial excuse The evil that I would not that I do Such sayings as these are to be tried by the severest measures and all such sences of them which are enemies to holiness of life are to be rejected because they are against the whole Oeconomy and design of the Gospel of the life and death of Christ. But a proverb being used by every man is supposed to contain the opinion and belief or experience of mankind and then that evil sence that we are pleased to put to them will be thought to be of the same authority I have heard of divers persons who have been strangely intic'd on to finish their revellings and drunken conventicles by a catch or a piece of a song by a humor and a word by a bold saying or a common proverb and whoever take any measures of good or evil but the severest discourses of reason and religion will be like a Ship turned every way by a little piece of wood by chance and by half a sentence because they dwell upon the water and a wave of the Sea is their foundation 81. XVI Let every man take heed of a
the gayeties of this sinful age For although Christs blood can expiate all sins and his Spirit can sanctifie all sinners and his Church can restore all that are capable yet if we consider that the particulars of every naughty mans case are infinitely uncertain that there are no minute-measures of repentance set down after Baptism that there are some states of sinners which God does reject that the arrival to this state is by parts and undetermin'd steps of progression that no man can tell when any sin begins to be unpardonable to such a person and that if we be careless of our selves and easie in our judgments and comply with the false measures of any age we may be in before we are aware and cannot come out so soon as we expect and lastly if we consider that the Primitive and Apostolical Churches who best knew how to estimate the mercies of the Gospel and the requisites of repentance and the malignity and dangers of sin did not promise pardon so easily so readily so quickly as we do we may think it fit to be more afraid and more contrite more watchful and more severe 31. I end this with the words of S. Hierome Cùm beatus Daniel praescius futurorum de sententiâ Dei dubitet rem temerariam faciunt qui audacter peccatoribus indulgentiam pollicentur Though Daniel could foretel future things yet he durst not pronounce concerning the King whether God would pardon him or no it is therefore a great rashness boldly to promise pardon to them that have sinned That is it is not to be done suddenly according to the caution which S. Paul gave to the Bishop of Ephesus Lay hands suddenly on no man that is absolve him not without great trial and just dispositions 32. For though this be not at all to be wrested to a suspicion that the sins in their kind are not pardonable yet thus far I shall make use of it That God who only hath the power he only can make the judgment whether the sinner be a worthy penitent or not For there being no express stipulation made concerning the degrees of repentance no taxa poenitentiaria penitential Tables and Canons consign'd by God it cannot be told by man when after great sins and a long iniquity the unhappy man shall be restor'd because it wholly depends upon the Divine acceptance 33. In smaller offences and the seldom returns of sin intervening in a good or a probable life the Curates of souls may make safe and prudent judgments But when the case is high and the sin is clamorous or scandalous or habitual they ought not to be too easie in speaking peace to such persons to whom God hath so fiercely threatned death eternal But to hold their hands may possibly increase the sorrow and contrition and fear of the penitent and returning man and by that means make him the surer of it But it is too great a confidence and presumption to dispense Gods pardon or the Kings upon easie terms and without their Commission 34. For since all the rule and measures of dispensing it is by analogies and proportions by some reason and much conjecture it were better by being restrain'd in the Ministeries of favour to produce fears and watchfulness carefulness and godly sorrow than by an open hand to make sinners bold and many confident and easie Those holy and wise men who were our Fathers in Christ did well weigh the dangers into which a sinning man had entred and did dreadfully fear the issues of the Divine anger and therefore although they openly taught that God hath set open the gates of mercy to all worthy penitents yet concerning repentance they had other thoughts than we have and that in the pardon of sinners there are many more things to be considered besides the possibility of having the sin pardoned SECT IV. Of the Sin against the Holy Ghost and in what sence it is or may be Vnpardonable 35. UPON what account the Primitive Church did refuse to admit certain Criminals to repentance I have already discoursed but because there are some places of Scripture which seem to have incouraged such severity by denying repentance also to some sinners it is necessary that they be considered also lest by being misunderstood some persons in the days of their sorrow be tempted to despair 36. The Novatians denying repentance to lapsed Christians pretended for their warrant those words of S. Paul It is impossible for those who were once inlightened and have tasted of the Heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come if they shall fall away to renew them again unto repentance seeing they crucifie to themselves the son of God afresh and put him to an open shame and parallel to this are those other words For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall consume the adversaries The sence of which words will be clear upon the explicating what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 37. If they shall fall away viz. from that state of excellent things in which they had received all the present endearments of the Gospel a full conviction pardon of sins the earnest of the Spirit the comfort of the promises an antepast of Heaven it self if these men shall fall away from all this it cannot be by infirmity by ignorance by surprise this is that which S. Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sin wilfully after they have received the knowledge of the truth Malicious sinners these are who sin against the Holy Spirit whose influences they throw away whose counsels they despise whose comforts they refuse whose doctrine they scorn and from thence fall not only into one single wasting sin but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they fall away into a contrary state into Heathenism or the heresie of the Gnosticks or to any state of despising and hating Christ expressed here by Crucifying the Son of God afresh and putting him to an open shame these are they here meant such who after they had worshipped Jesus and given up their names to him and had been blessed by him and felt it and acknowledged it and rejoyc'd in it these men afterwards without cause or excuse without error or infirmity chusingly willingly knowingly call'd Christ an Impostor and would have crucified him again if he had been alive that is they consented to his death by believing that he suffer'd justly This is the case here described and cannot be drawn to any thing else but its parallel that is a malicious renouncing charity or holy life as these men did the faith to both which they had made their solemn vows in Baptism but this can no way be
drawn to the condemnation and final excision of such persons who after baptism fall into any great sin of which they are willing to repent 38. There is also something peculiar in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 renewing such men to repentance that is these men are not to be redintegrate and put into the former condition they cannot be restored to any other gracious Covenant of repentance since they have despis'd this Other persons who hold fast their profession and forget not that they were cleansed in baptism they in case they do fall into sin may proceed in the same method in their first renovation to repentance that is in their being solemnly admitted to the method and state of repentance for all sins known and unknown But when this renovation is renounc'd when they despise the whole Oeconomy when they reject this grace and throw away the Covenant there is nothing left for such but a fearful looking for of judgment for these persons are incapable of the mercies of the Gospel they are out of the way For there being but one way of salvation viz. by Jesus Christ whom they renounce neither Moses nor Nature nor any other name can restore them And 2. Their case is so bad and they so impious and malicious that no man hath power to perswade such men to accept of pardon by those means which they so disown For there is no means of salvation but this one and this one they hate and will not have they will not return to the old and there is none left by which they can be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 renewed and therefore their condition is desperate 39. But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or impossible is also of special importance and consideration It is impossible to renew such For impossible is not to be understood in the natural sence but in the legal and moral There are degrees of impossibility and therefore they are not all absolute and supreme So when the law hath condemned a criminal we usually say it is impossible for him to escape meaning that the law is clearly against him Magnus ab infernis revocetur Tulliâ—s umbris Et te defendat Regulus ipse licèt Non potes absolvi That is your cause is lost you are inexcusable there is no apology no pleading for you and that the same is here meant we understand by those parallel words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is left no sacrifice for him alluding to Moses's law in which for them that sinn'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a high hand for them that despised Moses's law there was no sacrifice appointed which Ben Maimon expounds saying that for Apostates there was no sacrifice in the Law So that it is impossible to renew such means that it is ordinarily impossible we have in the discipline of the Church no door of reconciliation If he repents of this he is not the same man but if he remains so the Church hath no promise to be heard if she prays for him which is the last thing that the Church can do To absolve him is to warrant him that in this case is absolutely impossible but to pray for him is to put him into some hopes and for that she hath in this case no commission For this is the sin unto death of which S. John speaks and gives no incouragement to pray So that impossible does signifie in sensu forensi a state of sin which is sentenc'd by the Law to be capital and damning but here it signifies the highest degree of that deadliness and impossibility as there are degrees of malignity and desperation in mortal diseases for of all evils this state here described is the worst And therefore here is an impossibility 40. But besides all other sences of this word it is certain by the whole frame of the place and the very analogy of the Gospel that this impossibility here mentioned is not an impossibility of the thing but only relative to the person It is impossible to restore him whose state of evil is contrary to pardon and restitution as being a renouncing the Gospel that is the whole Covenant of pardon and repentance Such is that parallel expression used by S. John He that is born of God sinneth not neither indeed can he that is it is impossible he cannot sin for the seed of God remaineth in him Now this does not signifie that a good man cannot possibly sin if he would that is it does not signifie a natural or an absolute impossibility but such as relates to the present state and condition of the person being contrary to sin the same with that of S. Paul Be ye led by the Spirit for the spirit lusteth against the flesh so that ye cannot do the things which ye would viz. which the flesh would fain tempt you to A good man cannot sin that is very hardly can he be brought to chuse or to delight in it he cannot sin without a horrible trouble and uneasiness to himself so on the other side such Apostates as the Apostle speaks of cannot be renewed that is without extreme difficulty and a perfect contradiction to that state in which they are for the present lost But if this man will repent with a repentance proportion'd to that evil which he hath committed that he ought not to despair of pardon in the Court of Heaven we have the affirmation of Justin Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They that confess and acknowledge him to be Christ and for whatsoever cause go from him to the secular conversation viz. to Heathenism or Judaism c. denying that he is Christ and not confessing him again before their death they can never be saved So that this impossibility concerns not those that return and do confess him but those that wilfully and maliciously reject this only way of salvation as false and deceitful and never return to the confession of it again which is the greatest sin against the Holy Ghost of which I am in the next place to give a more particular account SECT V. 41. HE that speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall never be forgiven him in this world nor in the world to come so said our blessed Saviour Origen and the Novatians after him when the Scholars of Novatus to justifie their Masters Schism from the Church had chang'd the good old discipline into a new and evil doctrine said that all the sins of Christians committed after Baptism are sins against the Holy Ghost by whom in Baptism they have been illuminated and by him they were taught in the Gospel and by him they were consign'd in confirmation and promoted in all the assistances and Conduct of grace and they gave this reason for it Because the Father is in all Creatures the Son only in the Reasonable and the Holy Spirit in Christians against which if they prevaricate they shall not be pardon'd while the sins of Heathens as being only against
gone that they would not return and God did not and at last would not pardon them For this appellative is not properly subjected nor attributed to the sin it self but it is according as the man is The sin may be and is at some time unpardonable yet not in all its measures and parts of progression as appears in the case of Pharaoh who all the way from the first miracle to the tenth sinn'd against the Holy Ghost but at last he was so bad that God would not pardon him Some men are come to the greatness of the sin or to that state and grandeur of impiety that their estate is desperate that is though the nature of their sins is such as God is extremely angry with them and would destroy them utterly were he not restrain'd by an infinite mercy yet it shall not be thus for ever for in some state of circumstances and degrees God is finally angry with the man and will never return to him 49. Until things be come to this height whatsoever the sin be it is pardonable For if there were any one sin distinguishable in its whole nature and instance from others which in every of its periods were unpardonable it is most certain it would have been described in Scripture with clear characters and cautions that a man might know when he is in and when he is out Speaking a word against the Holy Spirit is by our blessed Saviour called this great sin but it is certain that every word spoken against him is not unpardonable Simon Magus spoke a foul word against him but S. Peter did not say it was unpardonable but when he bid him pray he consequently bid him hope but because he would not warrant him that is durst not absolve him he sufficiently declared that this sin is of an indefinite nature and by growth would arrive at the unpardonable state the state and fulness of it is unpardonable that is God will to some men and in some times and stages of their evil life be so angry that he will give them over and leave them in their reprobate mind But no man knows when that time is God only knows and the event must declare it 50. But for the thing it self that it is pardonable is very certain because it may be pardoned in baptism The Novatians denied not to baptism a power of pardoning any sin and in this sence it is without doubt true what Zosimus by way of reproach objected to Christian Religion it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a deletery and purgative for every sin whatsoever And since the unconverted Pharisees were guilty of this sin and it was a sin forbidden and punished capitally in the law of Moses either to these Christ could not have been preached and for them Christ did not die or else it is certain that the sin against the holy Spirit of God is pardonable 51. Now whereas our Blessed Lord affirmed of this sin it shall not be pardoned in this world nor in the world to come we may best understand the meaning of it by the parallel words of old Heli to his sons If a man sin against another the Judge shall judge him placari ei potest Deus so the Vulgar Latin reads it God may be appeased that is it shall be forgiven him that is a word spoken against the Son of man which relates to Christ only upon the account of his humane nature that may be forgiven him it shall that is upon easier terms as upon a temporal judgment called in this place a being judged by the Judge But if a man sin against the Lord who shall intreat for him that is if he sin with a high hand presumptuously against the Lord against his power and his Spirit who shall intreat for him it shall never be pardoned never so as the other never upon a temporal judgment that cannot expiate this great sin as it could take off a sin against a man or the Son of man for though it be punished here it shall be punished hereafter But 52. II. It shall not be pardoned in this world nor in the world to come that is neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles For Saeculum hoc this World in Scripture is the period of the Jews Synagogue and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the world to come is taken for the Gospel or the age of the Messias frequently among the Jews and it is not unlikely Christ might mean it in that sence which was used amongst them by whom he would be understood But because the word was also as commonly used in that sence in which it is understood at this day viz. for the world after this life I shall therefore propound another exposition which seems to me more probable Though remission of sins is more plentiful in the Gospel than under the Law yet because the sin is bigger under the Gospel there is not here any ordinary way of pardoning it no Ministery established to warrant or absolve such sinners but it must be referred to God himself and yet that 's not all For if a man perseveres in this sin he shall neither be forgiven here nor hereafter that is neither can he be absolved in this world by the ministery of the Church nor in the world to come by the sentence of Christ and this I take to be the full meaning of this so difficult place 53. For in this world properly so speaking there is no forgiveness of sins but what is by the ministery of the Church For then a sin is forgiven when it is pardon'd in the day of sentence or execution that is when those evils are removed which are usually inflicted or which are proper to that day Now then for the final punishment that is not till the day of judgment and if God then gives us a mercy in that day then is the day of our pardon from him In the mean time if he be gracious to us here he either forbears to smite us or smites us to bring us to repentance and all the way continues to us the use of the Word and Sacraments that is if he does in any sence pardon us here if he does not give us over to a reprobate mind he continues us under the means of salvation which is the ministery of the Church for that 's the way of pardon in this World as the blessed sentence of the right hand is the way of pardon in the World to come So that when our great Lord and Master threatens to this sin it shall not be pardon'd in this World nor in the World to come he means that neither shall the Ministers of the Church pronounce his pardon or comfort his sorrows or restore him after his fall or warrant his condition or pray for him publickly or give him the peace and communion of the Church neither will God pardon him in the day of Judgment 54. But all this fearful denunciation of the Divine judgment is only upon
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
which Heaven is opened and that is the word and baptism at the first and ever after the holy Sacrament of the Supper of the Lord and all the parts of the Bishops and Priests advocation and intercession in holy prayers and offices 59. But as for the declarative absolution although it is rather an act of wisdom than of power it being true as S. Hierome said that as the Priests of the Law could only discern and neither cause nor remove leprosies so the Ministers of the Gospel when they retain or remit sins do but in the one judge how long we continue guilty and in the other declare when we are clear and free yet this very declaration is of great use and in many cases of great effect For as God did in the case of David give to the Prophet Nathan a particular special and extraordinary commission so to the Ministers of the Gospel he gives one that is ordinary and perpetual He had a prophetical evidence but these have a certainty of faith as to one of the propositions and as to the other some parts of humane experience to assure them 1. of Gods gracious pardon to the penitent and 2. of the sincerity of their repentance and therefore can with great effect minister to the comfort of sad and afflicted penitents This does declare the pardon upon observation of the just grounds and dispositions but the dispensation of Ecclesiastical Sacraments does really minister to it not only by consigning it but as instruments of the Divine appointment to convey proper mercies to worthily disposed persons 60. II. But the other great thing which I was to say in this Article is this That the judicial absolution of the Priest does effect no material event or change in the penitent as to the giving the pardon and therefore cannot be it which Christ intended in the giving those excellent powers of remitting and retaining sins Now upon this will the whole issue depend Does the Priest absolve him whom God condemns God is the supreme Judge and though we may minister to his judgment yet we cannot contradict it or can the Priest condemn him whom God absolves That also is impossible He is near that justifieth me who will contend with me and if God be with us who can be against us Or will not God pardon unless the Priest absolves us That may become a sad story For he may be malicious or ignorant or interested or covetous and desirous to serve his own ends upon the ruine of my soul and therefore God dispenses his mercies by more regular just and equal measures than the accidental sentences of unknowing or imprudent men If then the Priest ministers only to repentance by saying I absolve thee what is it that he effects For since Gods pardon does not go by his measures his must go by Gods measures and the effect of that will be this God works his own work in us and when his Minister observes the effects of the Divine grace he can and ought to publish and declare to all the purposes of comfort and institution that the person is absolved that is he is in the state of grace and Divine favour in which if he perseveres he shall be saved But all this while the work is supposed to be done before and if it be the Priest hath nothing left for him to do but to approve to warrant and to publish And the case in short is this 61. Either the sinner hath repented worthily or he hath not If he hath then God hath pardoned him already by vertue of all the promises Evangelical If he hath not repented worthily the Priest cannot ought not to absolve him and therefore can by this absolution effect no new thing The work is done before the Priestly absolution and therefore cannot depend upon it Against this no Sect of men opposes any thing that I know of excepting only the Roman Doctors who yet confess the argument of value if the penitent be contrite But they add this that there is an imperfect Contrition which by a distinct word they call Attrition which is a natural grief or a grief proceeding wholly from fear or smart and hath in it nothing of love and this they say does not justifie the man nor pardon the sin of it self But if this man come to the Priest and confess and be absolv'd that absolution makes this attrition to become contrition or which is all one it pardons the mans sins and though this imperfect penitent cannot hope for pardon upon the confidence of that indisposition yet by the Sacrament of Penance or Priestly absolution he may hope it and shall not be deceived 62. Indeed if this were true it were a great advantage to some persons who need it mightily But they are the worst sort of penitents and such which though they have been very bad yet now resolve not to be very good if they can any other way escape it and by this means the Priests power is highly advanc'd and to submit to it would be highly necessary to most men and safest to all But if this be not true then to hope it is a false confidence and of danger to the event of souls it is a nurse of carelesness and gives boldness to imperfect penitents and makes them to slacken their own piety because they look for security upon confidence of that which will be had without trouble or mortification even the Priests absolution This therefore I am to examine as being of very great concernment in the whole article of Repentance and promised to be considered in the beginning of this Paragraph SECT V. Attrition or the imperfect Repentance though with Absolution is not sufficient 63. BY Attrition they mean the most imperfect Repentance that is a sorrow proceeding from fear of Hell a sorrow not mingled with the love of God This sorrow newly begun they say is sufficient for pardon if the sins be confest and the party absolved by the Priest This indeed is a short process and very easie but if it be not effectual and valid the persons that rely upon it are miserably undone Here therefore I consider 64. I. Attrition being a word of the Schools not of the Scripture or of antiquity means what they please to have it and although they differ in assigning its definition yet it being the least and the worst part of repentance every action of any man that can in any sence be said to repent upon consideration of any the most affrighting threatnings in the Gospel cannot be denied to have attrition Now such a person who being scar'd comes to confess his sin may still retain his affections to it for nothing but love to God can take away his love from evil and if there be love in it it is Contrition not Attrition From these premises it follows that if the Priest can absolve him that is attrite he may pardon him who hath affections to sin still remaining that is one who
seed Must every Bramble every Thistle weed And when each hindrance to the Grain is gone A fruitful crop shall rise of Corn alone When therefore there were so many ways made to the Devil I was willing amongst many others to stop this also and I dare say few Questions in Christendom can say half so much in justification of their own usefulness and necessity I know Madam that they who are of the other side do and will disavow most of these consequences and so do all the World all the evils which their adversaries say do follow from their opinions but yet all the World of men that perceive such evils to follow from a proposition think themselves bound to stop the progression of such opinions from whence they believe such evils may arise If the Church of Rome did believe that all those horrid things were chargeable upon Transubstantiation and upon worshipping of Images which we charge upon the Doctrines I do not doubt but they would as much disown the Propositions as now they do the consequents and yet I do as little doubt but that we do well to disown the first because we espy the latter and though the Man be not yet the doctrines are highly chargeable with the evils that follow it may be the men espy them not yet from the doctrines they do certainly follow and there are not in the World many men who own that which is evil in the pretence but many do such as are dangerous in the effect and this doctrine which I have reproved I take to be one of them Object 4. But if Original sin be not a sin properly why are children baptized And what benefit comes to them by Baptism I answer As much as they need and are capable of and it may as well be asked Why were all the sons of Abraham circumised when in that Covenant there was no remission of sins at all for little things and legal impurities and irregularities there were but there being no sacrifice there but of Beasts whose blood could not take away sin it is certain and plainly taught us in Scripture that no Rite of Moses was expiatory of sins But secondly This Objection can press nothing at all for why was Christ baptized who knew no sin But yet so it behoved him to fulfil all Righteousness 3. Baptism is called regeneration or the new birth and therefore since in Adam Children are born only to a natural life and a natural death and by this they can never arrive at Heaven therefore Infants are baptized because until they be born anew they can never have title to the Promises of Jesus Christ or be heirs of Heaven and co-heirs of Jesus 4. By Bapâ—ism Children are made partakers of the holy Ghost and of the grace of God which I desire to be observed in opposition to the Pelagian Heresie who did suppose Nature to be so perfect that the grace of God was not necessary and that by Nature alone they could go to Heaven which because I affirm to be impossible and that Baptism is therefore necessary because nature is insufficient and Baptism is the great channel of grace there ought to be no envious and ignorant load laid upon my Doctrine as if it complied with the Pelagian against which it is so essentially and so mainly opposed in the main difference of his Doctrine 5. Children are therefore Baptized because if they live they will sin and though their sins are not pardoned before-hand yet in Baptism they are admitted to that state of favour that they are within the Covenant of repentance and Pardon and this is expresly the Doctrine of S. Austin lib. 1. de nupt concup cap. 26. cap. 33. tract 124. in Johan But of this I have already given larger accounts in my Discourse of Baptism Part 2. p. 194. in the Great Exemplar 6. Children are baptized for the Pardon even of Original Sin this may be affirmed truly but yet improperly for so far as it is imputed so far also it is remissible for the evil that is done by Adam is also taken away in Christ and it is imputed to us to very evil purposes as I have already explicated but as it was among the Jews who believed then the sin to be taken away when the evil of punishment is taken off so is Original Sin taken away in Baptism for though the Material part of the evil is not taken away yet the curse in all the sons of God is turned into a blessing and is made an occasion of reward or an entrance to it Now in all this I affirm all that is true and all that is probable for in the same sence as Original stain is a sin so does Baptism bring the Pardon It is a sin metonymically that is because it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many and just so in Baptism it is taken away that it is now the matter of a grace and the opportunity of glory and upon these Accounts the Church Baptizes all her Children Object 5. But to deny Original Sin to be a sin properly and inherently is expresly against the words of S. Paul in the fifth Chapter to the Romans If it be I have done but that it is not I have these things to say 1. If the words be capable of any interpretation and can be permitted to signifie otherwise than is vulgarly pretended I suppose my self to have given reasons sufficient why they ought to be For any interpretation that does violence to right Reason to Religion to Holiness of life and the Divine Attributes of God is therefore to be rejected and another chosen For in all Scriptures all good and all wise men do it 2. The words in question sin and sinner and condemnation are frequently used in Scripture in the lesser sence and sin is taken for the punishment of sin and sin is taken for him who bore the evil of the sin and sin is taken for legal impurity and for him who could not be guilty even for Christ himself as I have proved already and in the like manner sinners is used by the rule of Conjugates and denominatives but it is so also in the case of Bathsheba the Mother of Solomon 3. For the word condemnation it is by the Apostle himself limited to signifie temporal death for when the Apostle says Death passed upon all men in as much as all men have sinned he must mean temporal death for eternal death did not pass upon all men or if he means eternal death he must not mean that it came for Adams sin but in as much as all men have sinned that is upon all those upon whom eternal death did come it came because they also have sinned For if it had come for Adams sin then it had absolutely descended upon all men because from Adam all men descended and therefore all men upon that account were equally guilty as we see all men die naturally 4. The
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
Rom. 5.12 As by one man sin entred into the world and Death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned i. e. As by the disobedience of Adam sin had its beginning and by sin death that is the sentence and preparations the solennities and addresses of death sickness calamity dâ—â—inution of strengths Old age misfortunes and all the affections of Mortality for the destroying of our temporal life and so this mortality and condition or state of death passed actually upon all mankind for Adam being thrown out of Paradise and forced to live with his Children where they had no Trees of Life as he had in Paradise was remanded to his mortal natural state and therefore death passed upon them mortally seized on all for that all have sinned that is the sin was reckoned to all not to make them guilty like Adam but Adams sin passed upon all imprinting this real calamity on us all But yet death descended also upon Adams Posterity for their own sins for since all did sin all should die But some Greek copies leave out the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which indeed seems superfluous and of no signification but then the sence is cleareâ— and the following words are the second part of a similitude As by one man sin entred into the world and death by sin So death passed upon all men for that all have sinned But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies neutrally And the meaning is As Adam died in his own sin So death passed upon all men for their own sin in the sin which they sinned in that sin they died As it did at first to Adam by whom sin first entred and by sin death so death passed upon all men upon whom sin passed that is in the same method they who did sin should die But then he does not seem to say that all did sin for he presently subjoyns that death reigned even upon those who did not sin after the similitude of Adams transgression but this was upon another account as appears in the following words But others expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie masculinely and to relate to Adam viz. that in him we all sinned Now although this is less consonant to the mind of the Apostle and is harsh and improper both in the language and in the sence yet if it were so it could mean but this that the sin of Adam was of Universal obligation and in him we are reckoned as sinners obnoxious to his sentence for by his sin humane Nature was reduced to its own mortality 13. For until the law sin was in the World but sin is not imputed where there is no law And marvel not that Death did presently descend on all mankind even before a Law was given them with an appendant penalty viz. With the express intermination of death For they did do actions unnatural and vile enough but yet these things which afterwards upon the publication of the Law were imputed to them upon their personal account even unto death were not yet so imputed For Nature alone gives Rules but does not directly bind to penalties But death came upon them before the Law for Adams sin for with him God being angry was pleased to curse him also in his Posterity and leave them also in their mere natural condition to which yet they disposed themselves and had deserved but too much by committing evil things to which things although before the law death was not threatned yet for the anger which God had against mankind he left that death which he threatned to Adam expresly by implication to fall upon the Posterity 14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression who is the figure of him which was to come And therefore it was that death reigned from Adam to Moses from the first law to the second from the time that a Law was given to one man till the time a Law was given to one Nation and although men had not sinned so grievously as Adam did who had no excuse many helps excellent endowments mighty advantages trifling temptations communication with God himself no disorder in his faculties free will perfect immunity from violence Original righteousness perfect power over his faculties yet those men such as Abel and Seth Noah and Abraham Isaac and Jacob Joseph and Benjamin who sinned less and in the midst of all their disadvantages were left to fall under the same sentence But it is to be observed that these words even over them that had not sinned according to some Interpretations are to be put into a Parenthesis and the following words after the similitude of Adams transgression are an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to be referred to the first words thus Death reigned from Adam to Moses after the similitude of Adams transgression that is as it was at first so it was afterwards death reigned upon men who had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression that is like as it did in the transgression of Adam so it did afterward they in their innocence died as Adam did in his sin and prevarication and this was in the similitude of Adam As they who obtain salvation obtain it in the similitude of Christ or by a conformity to Christ so they 〈◊〉 die do die in the likeness of Adam Christ and Adam being the two representatives of mankind For this besides that it was the present Oeconomy of the Divine Providence and Government it did also like Janus look 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it looked forwards as well as backwards and became a type of Christ or of him that was to come For as from Adam evil did descend upon his natural Children upon the account of Gods entercourse with Adam so did good descend upon the spiritual Children of the second Adam 15. But not as the offence so also is the free gift for if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many This should have been the latter part of a similitude but upon further consideration it is found that as in Adam we die so in Christ we live and much rather and much more therefore I cannot say as by one man vers 12. so by one man vers 15. But much more for not as the offence so also is the free gift for the offence of one did run over unto many and those many even as it were all except Enoch or some very few more of whom mention peradventure is not made are already dead upon that account but when God comes by Jesus Christ to shew mercy to mankind he does it in much more abundance he may be angry to the third and fourth generation in them that hate him but he will shew mercy unto thousands of them that love him to a thousand generations and in ten thousand degrees
brought death into the world That it was his sin alone that did the great mischief That this sin was made ours 〈◊〉 by inherence but by imputation That they who suffered the calamity did not know what the sin was That there was a difference of men even in relation to thiâ— sin and it passed upon some more than upon others that is some were more miserable than others That some did not sin by that sin of Adam and some did that is some there were whose manners were not corrupted by that example and some were that it was not our sin but his that the sin did not multiply by the variety of subject but was still but one sin and that it was his and not ours all which particulars are as so many verifications of the doctrine I have delivered and so many illustrations of the main Article But in verification of one great part of it I mean that concerning Infants and that they are not corrupted properly or made sinners by any inherent impurity is clearly affirmed by S. Peter whose words are thus rendred in the same Aethiopick Testament 1 Pet. 2.2 And be ye like unto newly begotten Infants who are begotten every one without sin or malice and as milk not mingled And to the same sence those words of our Blessed Saviour to the Pharisees asking who sinn'd this man or his Parents John 9. the Syriack Scholiast does give this Paraphrase some say it is an indirect question For how is it possible for a man to sin before he was born And if his Parents sinn'd how could he bear their sin But if they say that the punishment of the Parents may be upon the Children let them know that this is spoken of them that came out of Egypt and is not Universal And those words of David In sin hath my Mother conceived me R. David Kimchi and Abeâ—esra say that they are expounded of Eve who did not conceive till she had sinned But to return to the words of S. Paul The consequent of this discourse must needs at least be this that it is impossible that the greatest part of mankind should be left in the eternal bonds of Hell by Adam for then quite contrary to the discourse of the Apostle there had been abundance of sin but a scarcity of grace and the access had been on the part of Adam not on the part of Christ against which he so mightily and artificially contends so that the Presbyterian way is perfectly condemned by this discourse of the Apostle and the other more gentle way which affirms that we were sentenced in Adam to eternal death though the execution is taken off by Christ is also no way countenanced by any thing in this Chapter for that the judgment which for Adams sin came unto the condemnation of the world was nothing but temporal death is here affirmed it being in no sence imaginable that the death which here S. Paul says passed upon all men and which reigned from Adam to Moses should be eternal death for the Apostle speaks of that death which was threatned to Adam and of such a death which was afterwards threatned in Moses's Law and such a death which fell even upon the most righteous of Adams posterity Abel and Seth and Methuselah that is upon them who did not sin after the similitude of Adams transgression Since then all the judgment which the Apostle says came by the sin of Adam was sufficiently and plainly enough affirmed to be death temporal that God should sentence mankind to eternal damnation for Adams sin though in goodness through Christ he afterwards took it off is not at all affirmed by the Apostle and because in proportion to the evil so was the imputation of the sin it follows that Adams sin is ours metonymically and improperly God was not finally angry with us nor had so much as any designs of eternal displeasure upon that account his anger went no further than the evils of this life and therefore the imputation was not of a proper guilt for that might justly have passed beyond our grave if the sin had passed beyond a metonymy or a juridical external imputation And of this God and Man have given this further testimony that as no man ever imposed penance for it so God himself in nature did never for it afflict or affright the Conscience and yet the Conscience never spares any man that is guilty of a known sin Extemplo quodcunque malum committitur ipsi Displicet Authori He that is guilty of a sin Shall rue the crime that he lies in And why the Conscience shall be for ever at so much peace for this sin that a man shall never give one groan for his share of guilt in Adams sin unless some or other scares him with an impertinent proposition why I say the Conscience should not naturally be afflicted for it nor so much as naturally know it I confess I cannot yet make any reasonable conjecture save this only that it is not properly a sin but only metonymically and improperly And indeed there are some whole Churches which think themselves so little concerned in the matter of Original sin that they have not a word of it in all their Theology I mean the Christians in the East-Indies concerning whom Frier Luys di Vrretta in his Ecclesiastical story of Aethiopia says That the Christians in Aethiopia under the Empire of Prestre Juan never kept the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary no so entremetieron en essas Theologias del peccato Original porque mâ—nca tuvieron los entendimientes muy metafisicos antes como gente afable benigna Llana de entendimientos conversables y alaguenos seguian la dotrina de los santos antiguos y de los sagrados Concilios sin disputas ni diferencias nor do they insert into their Theology any propositions concerning Original Sin nor trouble themselves with such Metaphysical contemplations but being of an affable ingenuous gentle comportment and understanding follow the Doctrine of the Primitive Saints and Holy Councils without disputation or difference so says the story But we unfortunately trouble our selves by raising Ideas of Sin and afflict our selves with our own dreams and will not believe but it is a vision And the height of this imagination hath wrought so high in the Church of Rome that when they would do great honours to the Virgin Mary they were pleased to allow to her an immaculate conception without any Original Sin and a Holy-day appointed for the celebration of the dream But the Christians in the other world are wiser and trouble themselves with none of these things but in simplicity honour the Divine attributes and speak nothing but what is easie to be understood And indeed Religion is then the best and the world will be sure to have fewer Atheists and fewer Blasphemers when the understandings of witty men are not tempted by commanding them to believe impossible Articles and unintelligible propositions when every thing is
this may be well suppos'd without inferring their suffering the pains of Hell But this sentence of theirs I admit and explicate with some little difference of expression For so far I admit this pain of loss or rather a deficiency from going to Heaven to be the consequence of Adam's sin that by it we being left in meris Naturalibus could never by these strengths alone have gone to Heaven Now whereas your Lordship in behalf of those whom you suppose may be captious is pleas'd to argue That as loss of sight or eyes infers a state of darkness or blindness so the loss of Heaven infers Hell and if Infants go not to Heaven in that state whither can they go but to Hell and that 's Damnation in the greatest sence I grant it that if in the event of things they do not go to Heaven as things are now ordered it is but too likely that they go to Hell but I add that as all darkness does not infer horror and distraction of mind or fearful apparitions and phantasms so neither does all Hell or states in Hell infer all those torments which the School-men signifie by a poenaseâ—sus for I speak now in pursuance of their way So that there is no necessity of a third place but it concludes only that in the state of separation from Gods presence there is a great variety of degrees and kinds of evil and every one is not the extreme and yet by the way let me observe that Gregory Nazianzen and Nicetas taught that there is a third place for Infants and Heathens and Irenaeus affirm'd that the evils of Hell were not eternal to all but to the Devils only and the greater criminals But neither they nor we nor any man else can tell whether Hell be a place or no. It is a state of evil but whether all the damned be in one or in twenty places we cannot tell But I have no need to make use of any of this For when I affirm that Infants being by Adam reduc'd and left to their mere natural state fall short of Heaven I do not say they cannot go to Heaven at all but they cannot go thither by their natural powers they cannot without a new grace and favour go to Heaven But then it cannot presently be inferred that therefore they go to Hell but this ought to be inferr'd which indeed was the real consequent of it therefore it is necessary that Gods Grace should supply this defect if God intends Heaven to them at all and because Nature cannot God sent a Saviour by whom it was effected But if it be asked what if this grace had not come and that it be said that without Gods grace they must have gone to Hell because without it they could not go to Heaven I answer That we know how it is now that God in his goodness hath made provisions for them but if he had not made such provisions what would have been we know not any more than we know what would have followed if Adam had not sinned where he should have liv'd and how long and in what circumstances the posterity should have been provided for in all their possible contingencies But yet this I know that it follows not that if without this Grace we could not have gone to Heaven that therefore we must have gone to Hell For although the first was ordinarily impossible yet the second was absolutely unjust and against Gods goodness and therefore more impossible But because the first could not be done by nature God was pleased to promise and to give his grace that he might bring us to that state whither he had designâ—d us that is to a supernatural felicity If Adam had not fallen yet Heaven had not been a natural consequent of his obedience but a Gracious it had been a gift still and of Adam though he had persisted in innocence it is true to say That without Gods Grace that is by the mere force of Nature he could never have arriv'd to a Supernatural state that is to the joys of Heaven and yet it does not follow that if he had remain'd in Innocence he must have gone to Hell Just so it is in Infants Hell was not made for man but for Devils and therefore it must be something besides mere Nature that can bear any man thither mere Nature goes neither to Heaven nor Hell So that when I say Infants naturally cannot go to Heaven and that this is a punishment of Adam's sin he being for it punished with a loss of his gracious condition and devolv'd to the state of Nature and we by him left so my meaning is that this Damnation which is of our Nature is but negative that is as a consequent of our Patrialous sin our Nature is left imperfect and deficient in order to a supernatural end which the School-men call a poena damni but improperly they indeed think it may be a real event and final condition of persons as well as things but I affirm it was an evil effect of Adam's sin but in the event of things it became to the persons the way to a new grace and hath no other event as to Heaven and Hell directly and immediately In the same sence and to the same purpose I understand the word Damnation in the Ninth Article But the word Damnation may very well truly and sufficiently signifie all the purposes of the Article if it be taken only for the effect of that sentence which was inflicted upon Adam and descended on his posterity that is for condemnation to Death and the evils of mortality So the word is used by S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.29 He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word but that it did particularly signifie temporal death and evils appears by the instances of probation in the next words For for this cause some are weak amongst you some are sick and some are fallen asleep This also in the Article Original Sin deserves damnation that is it justly brought in the angry sentence of God upon Man it brought him to death and deserv'd it it brought it upon us and deserv'd it too I do not say that we by that sin deserv'd that death neither can death be properly a punishment of us till we superadd some evil of our own yet Adam's sin deserv'd it so that it was justly left to fall upon us we as a consequent and punishment of his sin being reduc'd to our natural portion In odiosis quod minimum est sequimur The lesser sence of the word is certainly agreeable to truth and reason and it were good we us'd the word in that sence which may best warrant her doctrine especially for that use of the word having the precedent of Scripture I am confirm'd in this interpretation by the second Section of the Article viz. of the remanency of Concupiscence or Original Sin in the Regenerate All the sinfulness of
Original Sin is the lust or concupiscence that is the proneness to sin Now then I demand whether Concupiscence before actual consent be a sin or no and if it be a sin whether it deserves damnation That all sin deserves damnation I am sure our Church denies not If therefore concupiscence before consent be a sin then this also deserves damnation where-ever it is and if so then a man may be damned for Original Sin even after Baptism For even after Baptism concupiscence or the sinfulness of Original Sin remains in the regenerate and that which is the same thing the same viciousness the same enmity to God after Baptism is as damnable it deserves damnation as much as that did that went before If it be replied that Baptism takes off the guilt or formal part of it but leaves the material part behind that is though concupiscence remains yet it shall not bring damnation to the regenerate or Baptized I answer that though baptismal regeneration puts a man into a state of grace and favour so that what went before shall not be imputed to him afterwards that is Adam's sin shall not bring damnation in any sence yet it hinders not but that what is sinful afterwards shall be then imputed to him that is he may be damn'd for his own concupiscence He is quitted from it as it came from Adam but by Baptism he is not quitted from it as it is subjected in himself if I say concupiscence before consent be a sin If it be no sin then for it Infants unbaptized cannot with justice be damn'd it does not deserve damnation but if it be a sin then so long as it is there so long it deserves damnation and Baptism did only quit the relation of it to Adam for that was all that went before it but not the danger of the man * But because the Article supposes that it does not damn the regenerate or baptized and yet that it hath the nature of sin it follows evidently and undeniably that both the phrases are to be diminished and understood in a favourable sence As the phrase the Nature of sin signifies so does Damnation but the Nature of sin signifies something that brings no guilt because it is affirm'd to be in the Regenerate therefore Damnation signifies something that brings no Hell but to deserve Damnation must mean something less than ordinary that is that concupiscence is a thing not morally good not to be allowed of not to be nurs'd but mortifi'd fought against disapprov'd condemn'd and disallowed of men as it is of God And truly My Lord to say that for Adam's sin it is just in God to condemn Infants to the eternal flames of Hell and to say that concupiscence or natural inclinations before they pass into any act could bring eternal condemnation from Gods presence into the eternal portion of Devils are two such horrid propositions that if any Church in the world would expresly affirm them I for my part should think it unlawful to communicate with her in the defence or profession of either and to think it would be the greatest temptation in the world to make men not to love God of whom men so easily speak such horrid things I would suppose the Article to mean any thing rather than either of these But yet one thing more I have to say The Article is certainly to be expounded according to the analogy of faith and the express words of Scripture if there be any that speak expresly in this matter Now whereas the Article explicating Original Sin affirms it to be that fault or corruption of mans nature vitium Naturae not peccatum by which he is far gone from Original righteousness and is inclin'd to evil because this is not full enough the Article adds by way of explanation So that the flesh lusteth against the spirit that is it really produces a state of evil temptations It lusteth that is actually and habitually it lusteth against the spirit and therefore deserves Gods wrath and damnation So the Article Therefore for no other reason but because the flesh lusteth against the spirit not because it can lust or is apta nata to lust but because it lusteth actually therefore it deserves damnation and this is Original Sin or as the Article expresses it it hath the nature of sin it is the fomes or matter of sin and is in the Original of mankind and deriv'd from Adam as our body is but it deserves not damnation in the highest sence of the word till the concupiscence be actual Till then the words of Wrath and Damnation must be meant in the less and more easie signification according to the former explication and must only relate to the personal sin of Adam To this sence of the Article I heartily subscribe For besides the reasonableness of the thing and the very manner of speaking us'd in the Article it is the very same way of speaking and exactly the same doctrine which we find in S. James Jam. 1.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concupiscence when it is impregnated when it hath conceiv'd then it brings forth sin and sin when it is in production and birth brings forth death But in Infants concupiscence is innocent and a virgin it conceives not and therefore is without sin and therefore without death or damnation * Against these expositions I cannot imagine what can be really and materially objected But my Lord I perceive the main out-cry is like to be upon the authority of the Harmony of Confessions Concerning which I shall say this That in this Article the Harmony makes as good musick as Bells ringing backward and they agree especially when they come to be explicated and untwisted into their minute and explicite meanings as much as Lutheran and Calvinist as Papist and Protestant as Thomas and Scotus as Remonstrant and Dordrechtan that is as much as pro and con or but a very little more I have not the book with me here in prison and this neighbourhood cannot supply me and I dare not trust my memory to give a scheme of it but your Lordship knows that in nothing more do the Reformed Churches disagree than in this and its appendages and you are pleased to hint something of it by saying that some speak more of this than the Church of England and Andrew Rivet though unwillingly yet confesses De Confessionibus nostris earum syntagmate vel Harmonia etiamsi in non nullis capitibus non planè conveniant dicam tamen melius in corcordiam redigi posse quà m in Ecclesia Romana concordantiam discordantium Canonum quo titulo decretum Gratiani quod Canonistis regulas praefigit solet insigniri And what he affirms of the whole collection is most notorious in the Article of Original Sin For my own part I am ready to subscribe the first Helvetian confession but not the second So much difference there is in the confessions of the same Church Now whereas your Lordship adds that though they
are fallible yet when they bring evidence of holy Writ their assertions are infallible and not to be contradicted I am bound to reply that when they do so whether they be infallible or no I will believe them because then though they might yet they are not deceived But as evidence of holy Writ had been sufficient without their authority so without such evidence their authority is nothing But then My Lord their citing and urging the words of S. Paul Rom. 5.12 is so far from being an evident probation of their Article that nothing is to me a surer argument of their fallibility than the urging of that which evidently makes nothing for them but much against them As 1. Affirming expresly that death was the event of Adam's sin the whole event for it names no other temporal death according to that saying of S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. In Adam we all die And 2. Affirming this process of death to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is and ought to be taken to be the allay or condition of the condemnation It became a punishment to them only who did sin but upon them also inflicted for Adam's sake A like expression to which is in the Psalms Psalm 106.32 33. They angred him also at the waters of strife so that he punished Moses for their sakes Here was plainly a traduction of evil from the Nation to Moses their relative For their sakes he was punished but yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as much as Moses had sinn'd for so it follows because they provoked his spirit so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips So it is between Adam and us He sinn'd and God was highly displeased This displeasure went further than upon Adam's sin for though that only was threatned with death yet the sins of his children which were not so threatned became so punished and they were by nature heirs of wrath and damnation that is for his sake our sins inherited his curse The curse that was specially and only threatned to him we when we sinn'd did inherit for his sake So that it is not so properly to be called Original Sin as an Original curse upon our sin To this purpose we have also another example of God transmitting the curse from one to another Both were sinners but one was the Original of the curse or punishment So said the Prophet to the wife of Jeroboam 1 Kings 14.16 He shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam who did sin and who made Israel to sin Jeroboam was the root of the sin and of the curse Here it was also that I may use the words of the Apostle that by the sin of one man Jeroboam sin went out into all Israel and the curse captivity or death by sin and so death went upon all men of Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men of Israel have sinned If these men had not sinned they had not been punished I cannot say they had not been afflicted for David's child was smitten for his fathers fault but though they did sin yet unless their root and principal had sinned possibly they should not have so been punished For his sake the punishment came Upon the same account it may be that we may inherit the damnation or curse for Adam's sake though we deserve it yet it being transmitted from Adam and not particularly threatned to the first posterity we were his heirs the heirs of death deriving from him an Original curse but due also if God so pleased to our sins And this is the full sence of the 12. verse and the effect of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But your Lordship is pleased to object that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does once signifie For as much as yet three times it signifies in or by To this I would be content to submit if the observation could be verified and be material when it were true But besides that it is so used in 2 Cor. 5.4 your Lordship may please to see it used as not only my self but indeed most men and particularly the Church of England does read it and expound it in Mat. 26.50 And yet if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same with in or by if it be rendred word for word yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice in the Scripture signifies for as much as as you may read Rom. 8.3 and Heb. 2.18 So that here are two places besides this in question and two more ex abundanti to shew that if it were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but said in words expresly as you would have it in the meaning yet even so neither the thing nor any part of the thing could be evicted against me and lastly if it were not only said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that that sence of it were admitted which is desired and that it did mean in or by in this very place yet the Question were not at all the nearer to be concluded against me For I grant that it is true in him we are all sinners as it is true that in him we all die that is for his sake we are us'd as sinners being miserable really but sinners in account and effect as I have largely discoursed in my book But then for the place here in question it is so certain that it signifies the same thing as our Church reads it that it is not sence without it but a violent breach of the period without precedent or reason And after all I have looked upon those places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said to signifie in or by and in one of them I find it so Mat. 2.4 but in Acts 3.16 and Phil. 1.3 I find it not at all in any sence but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed is used for in or by in that of the Acts and in the other it signifies at or upon but if all were granted that is pretended to it no way prejudices my cause as I have already proved Next to these your Lordship seems a little more zealous and decretory in the Question upon the confidence of the 17 18 and 19. Verses of the 5. Chapter to the Romans The summ of which as your Lordship most ingeniously summs it up is this As by one many were made sinners so by one many were made righteous that by Adam this by Christ. But by Christ we are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just not by imputation only but effectively and to real purposes therefore by Adam we are really made sinners And this your Lordship confirms by the observation of the sence of two words here used by the Apostle The first is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a sentence of guilt or punishment for sin and this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes because God punishes none but for their own sin Ezek. 18.2 From the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clear from sin so your Lordship renders
be defended against captious objectors It is hard when men will not be patient of truth because another man offers it to them and they did not first take it in or if they did were not pleas'd to own it But from your Lordship I expect and am sure to find the effects of your piety wisdom and learning and that an error for being popular shall not prevail against so necessary though unobserved truth A necessary truth I call it because without this I do not understand how we can declare Gods righteousness and justifie him with whom unrighteousness cannot dwell But if men of a contrary opinion can reconcile their usual doctrines of Original Sin with Gods justice and goodness and truth I shall be well pleased with it and think better of their doctrine than now I can But until that be done it were well My Lord if men would not trouble themselves or the Church with impertinent contradictions but patiently give leave to have truth advanced and God justified in his sayings and in his judgments and the Church improved and all errors confuted that what did so prosperously begin the Reformation may be admitted to bring it to perfection that men may no longer go quà itur but quà eundum est THE Bishop of ROCHESTER'S Letter TO D r. TAYLOR WITH AN Account of the particulars there given in Charge Worthy Sir LET me request you to weigh that of S. Paul Ephes. 2.5 which are urged by some Ancients and to remember how often he calls Concupiscence Sin whereby it is urg'd that although Baptism take away the guilt as concretively redounding to the person yet the simple abstracted guilt as to the Nature remains for Sacraments are administred to Persons not to Natures I confess I find not the Fathers so fully and plainly speaking of Original Sin till Pelagius had pudled the stream but after this you may find S. Jerome in Hos. saying In Paradiso omnes praevaricati sunt in Adamo And S. Ambrose in Rom. 1.5 Manifestum est omnes peccasse in Adam quasi in massâ ex eo igitur cuncti peccatores quia ex eo sumus omnes and as Greg. 39. Hom. in Ezek. Sine culpâ in mundo esse non potest qui in nundum cum culpâ venit But S. Austin is so frequent so full and clear in his assertions that his words and reasons will require your most judicious examinations and more strict weighing of them He saith Epist. 107. Scimus secundùm Adam nos primâ nativitate contagium mortis contrahere nec liberamur à supplicio mortis aeternae nisi per gratiam renascamur in Christo Id. de verb. Apost Ser. 4. Peccatum à primo homine in omnes homines pertranstit etenim illud peccatum non in fonte mansit sed pertransiit and Rom. 5. ubi â—e invenit venundatum sub peccato trahentem peccatum primi hominis habentem peccatum antequam possis habere arbitrium Id. de praedestin grat c. 2. Si infans unius diei non sit sine peccato qui proprium habere non potuit conficitur ut illud traxerit alienum de quo Apost Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum quod qui negat negat profectò nos esse mortales quoniam mors est poenae peccati Sequitur necesse est poena peccatum Id. enchir c. 9.29 Sola gratia redemptos discernit à perditis quos in unam perditionis massam concreverat ab origine ducta communis contagio Id. de peccator mer. remiss l. 1. c. 3. Concupiscentia carnis peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis Quid potest aut potuit nasci ex servo nisi servus ideo sicut omnis homo ab Adamo est ita omnis homo per Adamum servus est peccati Rom. 5. Falluntur ergo omnino qui dicunt mortem solam non peccatum transiisse in genus humanum Prosper resp ad articulum Augustino falsò impositum Omnes homines praevaricationis reos damnationi obnoxiâ—s nasci periturosque nisi in Christo renascamur asserimus Tho. 12. q. 8. Secundum fidem Catholicam tenendum est quod primum peccatum primi hominis originaliter transit in posteros propter quod etiam pueri mox nati deferuntur ad baptismum ab interiore culpâ abluendi Contrarium est haeresis Pelag. unde peccatum quod sic à primo parente derivatur dicitur Originale sicut peccatum quod ab animâ derivatur ad membra corporis dicitur actuale Bonavent in 2. sent dist 31. Sicut peccatum actuale tribuitur alicui ratione singularis personae ita peccatum originale tribuitur ratione Naturae corpus infectum traducitur quia persona Adae infecit naturam natura infecit personam Animae enim inficitur à carne per colligantiam quum unita carni traxit ad se alterius proprietates Lombar 2. Sent. dist 31. Peccatum originale per corruptionem carnis in animâ fit in vase enim dignoscitur vitium esse quod vinum accescit If you take into consideration the Covenant made between Almighty God and Adam as relating to his posterity it may conduce to the satisfaction of those who urge it for a proof of Original Sin Now that the work may prosper under your hands to the manifestation of Gods glory the edification of the Church and the satisfaction of all good Christians is the hearty prayer of Your fellow servant in our most Blessed Lord Christ Jesu JO. ROFFENS My Lord I Perceive that you have a great Charity to every one of the sons of the Church that your Lordship refuses not to solicite their objections and to take care that every man be answered that can make objections against my Doctrine but as your charity makes you refuse no work or labour of love so shall my duty and obedience make me ready to perform any commandment that can be relative to so excellent a principle I am indeed sorry your Lordship is thus haunted with objections about the Question of Original Sin but because you are pleas'd to hand them to me I cannot think them so inconsiderable as in themselves they seem for what your Lordship thinks worthy the reporting from others I must think are fit to be answered and returned by me In your Lordships of November 10. these things I am to reply to Let me request you to weigh that of S. Paul Ephes. 2.5 The words are these Even when we were dead in sins God hath quickned us together with Christ which words I do not at all suppose relate to the matter of Original Sin but to the state of Heathen sins habitual Idolatries and impurities in which the world was dead before the great Reformation by Christ. And I do not know any Expositor of note that suspects any other sence of it and the second Verse of that Chapter makes it so certain and plain that it is too visible to insist upon it
longer But your Lordship adds further And to remember how often he calls Concupiscence Sin I know S. Paul reckons Concupiscence to be one of the works of the flesh and consequently such as excludes from Heaven Col. 3.5 Evil Concupiscence concupiscence with something superadded but certainly that is nothing that is natural for God made nothing that is evil and whatsoever is natural and necessary cannot be mortified but this may and must and the Apostle calls upon us to do it but that this is a superinducing and an actual or habitual lusting appears by the following words Verse 7. in which ye also walked sometimes when ye lived in them such a concupiscence as that which is the effect of habitual sins or an estate of sins of which the Apostle speaks Rom. 7.8 Sin taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence that is so great a state of evil such strong inclinations and desires to sin that I grew as captive under it it introduced a necessity like those in S. Peter who had eyes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 full of an Adulteress the women had possessed their eyes and therefore they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they could not cease from sin because having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all concupiscence that is the very spirit of sinful desires they could relish nothing but the productions of sin they could fancy nothing but Colloquintida and Toadstools of the Earth * Once more I find S. Paul speaking of Concupiscence 1 Thess. 4.5 Let every man know to possess his vessel in holiness and honour not in the lust of concupiscence as do the Gentiles which know not God In the lust of Concupiscence that is plainly in lustfulness and impurity for it is a Hebraism where a superlative is usually expressed by the synonymon as Lutum coeni pluvia imbris so the Gall of bitterness and the iniquity of sins Robur virium the blackness of darkness that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the outer darkness or the greatest darkness so here the lus◠of Concupiscence that is the vilest and basest of it I know no where else that the Apostle uses the word in any sence But the like is to be said of the word lust which the Apostle often uses for the habits produced or the pregnant desires but never for the natural principle and affection when he speaks of sin But your Lordship is pleased to add a subtlety in pursuance of your former advices and notices which I confess I shall never understand Although Baptism take away the guilt as concretively redounding to the person yet the simple abstracted guilt as to the Nature remains for Sacraments are administred to persons not to natures This I suppose those persons from whom your Lordship reports it intended as an answer to a secret objection For if Concupiscence be a sin and yet remains after Baptism then what good does Baptism effect But if it be no sin after then it is no sin before To this it is answered as you see there is a double guilt a guilt of person and of nature That is taken away this is not for Sacraments are given to Persons not to Natures But first where is there such a distinction set down in Scripture or in the prime Antiquity or in any moral Philosopher There is no humane nature but what is in the persons of men and though our understanding can make a separate consideration of these or rather consider a person in a double capacity in his personal and in his natural that is if I am to speak sence a person may be considered in that which is proper to him and in that which is common to him and others yet these two considerations cannot make two distinct subjects capable of such different events I will put it to the trial This guilt that is in nature what is it Is it the same thing that was in the person that is is it an obligation to punishment If it be not I know not the meaning of the word and therefore I have nothing to do with it If it be then if this guilt or obligation to punishment remains in the nature after it is taken from the person then if this concupiscence deserve damnation this nature shall be damned though the person be saved Let the Objectors my Lord chuse which they will If it does not deserve damnation why do they say it does If it does then the guilty may suffer what they deserve but the innocent or the absolved must not the person then being acquitted and the nature not acquitted the nature shall be damn'd and the person be saved But if it be said that the guilt remains in the nature to certain purposes but not to all then I reply so it does in the person for it is in the person after Baptism so as to be a perpetual possibility and proneness to sin and a principle of trouble and if it be no otherwise in the nature then this distinction is to no purpose if it be otherwise in the nature then it brings damnation to it when it brings none to the Man and then the former argument must return But whether it prevail or no yet I cannot but note that what is here affirmed is expresly against the words commonly attributed to S. Cyprian De ablutione pedum Sic abluit quos parentalis labes infecerat ut nec actualis nec Originalis macula post ablutionem illam ulla sui vestigia derelinquat How this supposing it of Baptism can be reconcil'd with the guilt remaining in the nature I confess I cannot give an account It is expresly against S. Austin Tom. 9. Tract 41. in Johan Epist. ad Ocean saying deleta est tota iniquitas expresly against S. Hierome Quomodo justificati sumus sanctificati si peccatum aliquid in nobis relinquitur But again My Lord I did suppose that Concupiscence or Original Sin had been founded in nature and had not been a personal but a natural evil I am sure so the Article of our Church affirms it is the fault and corruption of our Nature And so S. Bonaventure affirms in the words cited by your Lordship in your Letter Sicut peccatum actuale tribuitur alicui ratione singularis personae ita peccatum originis tribuitur ratione naturae Either then the Sacrament must have effect upon our Nature to purifie that which is vitiated by Concupiscence or else it does no good at all For if the guilt or sin be founded in the nature as the Article affirms and Baptism does not take off the guilt from the nature then it does nothing Now since your Lordship is pleas'd in the behalf of the objectors so warily to avoid what they thought pressing I will take leave to use the advantages it ministers for so the Serpent teaches us where to strike him by his so warily and guiltily defending his head I therefore argue thus Either Baptism does not take off the guilt of Original Sin
or else there may be punishment where there is no guilt or else natural death was not it which God threatned as the punishment of Adam's fact For it is certain that all men die as well after Baptism as before and more after than before That which would be properly the consequent of this Dilemma is this that when God threatned death to Adam saying On the day thou eatest of the tree thou shalt die the death he inflicted and intended to inflict the evils of a troublesome mortal life For Adam did not die that day but Adam began to be miserable that day to live upon hard labour to eat fruits from an accursed field till he should return to the Earth whence he was taken Gen. 3.17 18 19. So that death in the common sence of the word was to be the end of his labour not so much the punishment of the sin For it is probable he should have gone off from the scene of this world to a better though he had not sinn'd but if he had not sinn'd he should not be so afflicted and he should not have died daily till he had died finally that is till he had returned to his dust whence he was taken and whither he would naturally have gone and it is no new thing in Scripture that miseries and infelicities should be called dying or death Exod. 10.17 1 Cor. 15.31 2 Cor. 1.10 4.10 11 12. 11.23 But I only note this as probable as not being willing to admit what the Socinians answer in this argument who affirm that God threatning death to the Sin of Adam meant death eternal which is certainly not true as we learn from the words of the Apostle saying In Adam we all die which is not true of death eternal but it is true of the miseries and calamities of mankind and it is true of temporal death in the sence now explicated and in that which is commonly received But I add also this probleme That which would have been had there been no sin and that which remains when the sin or guiltiness is gone is not properly the punishment of the sin But dissolution of the soul and body should have been if Adam had not sinn'd for the world would have been too little to have entertain'd those myriads of men which must in all reason have been born from that blessing of Increase and multiply which was given at the first Creation and to have confin'd mankind to the pleasures of this world in case he had not fallen would have been a punishment of his innocence but however it might have been though God had not been angry and shall still be even when the sin is taken off The proper consequent of this will be that when the Apostle says Death came in by sin and that Death is the rages of sin he primarily and literally means the solemnities and causes and infelicities and untimeliness of temporal death and not merely the dissolution which is directly no evil but an inlet to a better state But I insist not on this but offer it to the consideration of inquisitive and modest persons And now that I may return thither from whence this objection brought me I consider that if any should urge this argument to me Baptism delivers from Original Sin Baptism does not deliver from Concupiscence therefore Concupiscence is not Original Sin I did not know well what to answer I could possibly say something to satisfie the boys and young men at a publick disputation but not to satisfie my self when I am upon my knees and giving an account to God of all my secret and hearty perswasions But I consider that by Concupiscence must be meant either the first inclinations to their object or the proper acts of Election which are the second acts of Concupiscence If the first inclinations be meant then certainly that cannot be a sin which is natural and which is necessary For I consider that Concupiscence and natural desires are like hunger which while it is natural and necessary is not for the destruction but conservation of man when it goes beyond the limits of nature it is violent and a disease and so is Concupiscence But desires or lustings when they are taken for the natural propensity to their proper object are so far from being a sin that they are the instruments of felicity for this duration and when they grow towards being irregular they may if we please grow instruments of felicity in order to the other duration because they may serve a vertue by being restrained And to desire that to which all men tend naturally is no more a sin than to desire to be happy is a sin desire is no more a sin than joy or sorrow is neither can it be fancied why one passion more than another can be in its whole nature Criminal either all or none are so when any of them grows irregular or inordinate Joy is as bad as Desire and Fear as bad as either But if by Concupiscence we mean the second acts of it that is avoidable consentings and deliberate elections then let it be as much condemned as the Apostle and all the Church after him hath sentenc'd it but then it is not Adam's sin but our own by which we are condemned for it is not his fault that we chuse If we chuse it is our own if we chuse not it is no fault For there is a natural act of the Will as well as of the Understanding and in the choice of the supreme Good and in the first apprehension of its proper object the Will is as natural as any other faculty and the other faculties have degrees of adherence as well as the Will so have the potestative and intellective faculties they are delighted in their best objects But because these only are natural and the will is natural sometimes but not always there it is that a difference can be For I consider if the first Concupiscence be a sin Original Sin for actual it is not and that this is properly personally and inherently our sin by traduction that is if our will be necessitated to sin by Adam's fall as it must needs be if it can sin when it cannot deliberate then there can be no reason told why it is more a sin to will evil than to understand it and how does that which is moral differ from that which is natural for the understanding is first and primely moved by its object and in that motion by nothing else but by God who moves all things and if that which hath nothing else to move it but the object yet is not free it is strange that the will can in any sence be free when it is necessitated by wisdom and by power and by Adam that is from within and from without besides what God and violence do and can do But in this I have not only Scripture and all the reason of the world on my side but the complying sentences of the
their Adversaries that speak so much reason and Scripture against them I have instanced in the Roman Religion but I wish it may be considered also how far mens doctrines in other Sects serve mens temporal ends so far that it would not be unreasonable or unnecessary to attempt to cure some of their distemperatures or misperswasions by the salutary precepts of sanctitie and holy life Sure enough if it did not more concern their reputation and their lasting interest to be counted true believers rather then good livers they would rather endeavour to live well then to be accounted of a right Opinion in things beside the Creed For my own particular I cannot but expect that God in his Justice should enlarge the bounds of the Turkish Empire or some other way punish Christians by reason of their pertinacious disputing about things unnecessary undeterminable and unprofitable and for their hating and persecuting their brethen which should be as dear to them as their own lives for not consenting to one another's follies and senseless vanities How many volumes have been writ about Angels about immaculate Conception about Original sin when that all that is solid Reason or clear Revelation in all these three Articles may be reasonably enough comprised in fourty lines And in these trifles and impertinencies men are curiously busie while they neglect those glorious precepts of Christianity and holy life which are the glories of our Religion and would enable us to a happy eternity My Lord Thus far my thoughts have carried me and then I thought I had reason to go further and to examine the proper grounds upon which these perswasions might rely and stand firm in case any body should contest against them For possibly men may be angry at me and my design for I do all them great displeasure who think no end is then well served when their interest is disserved and but that I have writ so untowardly and heavily that I am not worth a confutation possibly some or other might be writing against me But then I must tell them I am prepared of an answer beforehand For I think I have spoken reason in my Book and examined it with all the severity I have and if after all this I be deceived this confirms me in my first opinion and becomes a new Argument to me that I have spoken reason for it furnishes me with a new instance that it is necessary there should be a mutual compliance and Toleration because even then when a man thinks he hath most reason to be confident he may easily be deceived For I am sure I have no other design but the prosecution and advantage of Truth and I may truely use the words of Gregory Nazianzen Non studemus paci in detrimentum verae doctrinae ut facilitatis mansuetudinis famam colligamus but I have writ this because I thought it was necessary and seasonable and charitable and agreeable to the great precepts and design of Christianity consonant to the practice of the Apostles and of the best Ages of the Church most agreeable to Scripture and Reason to Revelation and the nature of the thing and it is such a Doctrine that if there be variety in humane affairs if the event of things be not setled in a durable consistence but is changeable every one of us all may have need of it I shall onely therefore desire that they who will reade it may come to the reading it with as much simplicity of purposes and unmixed desires of truth as I did to the writing it and that no man trouble himself with me or my discourse that thinks beforehand that his Opinion cannot be reasonably altered If he thinks me to be mistaken before he tries let him also think that he may be mistaken too and that he who judges before he hears is mistaken though he gives a right sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Was good counsel But at a venture I shall leave this sentence of Solomon to his consideration A wise man feareth and departeth from evil but a fool rageth and is confident 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a trick of boys and bold young fellows says Aristotle but they who either know themselves or things or persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peradventure yea peradventure no is very often the wisest determination of a Question For there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle notes foolish and unlearned Questions and it were better to stop the current of such fopperies by silence then by disputing them convey them to posterity And many things there are of more profit which yet are of no more certainty and therefore boldness of assertion except it be in matters of Faith and clearest Revelation is an Argument of the vanity of the man never of the truth of the Proposition for to such matters the saying of Xenophanes in Varro is pertinent and applicable Hominis est haec opinari Dei scire God only knows them and we conjecture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And although I be as desirous to know what I should and what I should not as any of my brethren the sons of Adam yet I find that the more I search the farther I am from being satisfied and make but few discoveries save of my own ignorance and therefore I am desirous to follow the example of a very wise personage Julius Agricola of whom Tacitus gave this testimony RetinuÃtque quod est difficillimum ex scientia modum or that I may take my precedent from within the pale of the Church it was the saying of S. Austin Mallem quidem eorum quae à me quaesivisti habere scientiam quam ignorantiam sed quia id nondum potui magis eligo cautam ignorantiam confiteri quam falsam scientiam profiteri And these words do very much express my sense But if there be any man so confident as Luther sometime was who said that he could expound all Scripture or so vain as Eckius who in his Chrysopassus ventur'd upon the highest and most mysterious Question of Predestination ut in ea juveniles possit calores exercere such persons as these or any that is furious in his opinion will scorn me and my Discourse but I shall not be much mov'd at it onely I shall wish that I had as much knowledge as they think me to want and they as much as they believe themselves to have In the mean time modesty were better for us both and indeed for all men For when men indeed are knowing amongst other things they are able to separate certainties from uncertainties If they be not knowing it is pitty that their ignorance should be triumphant or discompose the publick peace or private confidence And now my Lord that I have inscrib'd this Book to your Lordship although it be a design of doing honour to myself that I have mark'd it with so honour'd and beloved a Name might possibly need as much excuse as it does pardon but that your
than the damning of those many souls occasionally but yet certainly and fore-knowingly does hurt I leave it to all wise and good men to determine And yet besides this it cannot enter into my thoughts that it can possibly consist with Gods goodness to put it into the power of man so palpably and openly to alter the paths and in-lets to heaven and to streighten his mercies unless he had furnished these men with an infallible judgment and an infallible prudence and a never failing charity that they should never do it but with great necessity and with great truth and without ends and humane designs of which I think no Arguments can make us certain what the Primitive Church hath done in this case I shall afterwards consider and give an account of it but for the present there is no insecurity in ending there where the Apostles ended in building where they built in resting where they left us unless the same infallibility which they had had still continued which I think I shall hereafter make evident it did not And therefore those extensions of Creed which were made in the first Ages of the Church although for the matter they were most true yet because it was not certain that they should be so and they might have been otherwise therefore they could not be in the same order of Faith nor in the same degrees of necessity to be believed with the Articles Apostolical and therefore whether they did well or no in laying the same weight upon them or whether they did lay the same weight or no we will afterwards consider 13. But to return I consider that a foundation of Faith cannot alter unless a new building be to be made the foundation is the same still and this foundation is no other but that which Christ and his Apostles laid which Doctrine is like himself yesterday and to day and the same for ever So that the Articles of necessary belief to all which are the only foundation they cannot be several in several Ages and to several persons Nay the sentence and declaration of the Church cannot lay this foundation or make any thing of the foundation because the Church cannot lay her own foundation we must suppose her to be a building and that she relies upon the foundation which is therefore supposed to be laid before because she is built upon it or to make it more explicate because a cloud may arise from the Allegory of building and foundation it is plainly thus The Church being a company of men obliged to the duties of Faith and obedience the duty and obligation being of the faculties of will and understanding to adhere to such an object must pre-suppose the object made ready for them for as the object is before the act in order of nature and therefore not to be produced or encreased by the faculty which is receptive cannot be active upon its proper object So the object of the Churches Faith is in order of nature before the Church or before the act and habit of Faith and therefore cannot be enlarged by the Church any more than the act of the visive faculty can add visibility to the object So that if we have found out what foundation Christ and his Apostles did lay that is what body and systeme of Articles simply necessary they taught and required of us to believe we need not we cannot go any farther for foundation we cannot enlarge that systeme or collection Now then although all that they said is true and nothing of it to be doubted or dis-believed yet as all that they said is neither written nor delivered because all was not necessary so we know that of those things which are written some things are as far off from the foundation as those things which were omitted and therefore although now accidentally they must be believed by all that know them yet it is not necessary all should know them and that all should know them in the same sence and interpretation is neither probable nor obligatory but therefore since these things are to be distinguished by some differences of necessary and not necessary whether or no is not the declaration of Christ and his Apostles affixing salvation to the belief of some great comprehensive Articles and the act of the Apostles rendring them as explicite as they thought convenient and consigning that Creed made so explicite as a tessera of a Christian as a comprehension of the Articles of his belief as a sufficient disposition and an express of the Faith of a Catechumen in order to Baptism whether or no I say all this be not sufficient probation that these only are of absolute necessity that this is sufficient for meer belief in order to Heaven and that therefore whosoever believes these Articles heartily and explicitely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Saint John's expression is God dwelleth in him I leave it to be considered and judged of from the premises Only this if the old Doctors had been made Judges in these Questions they would have passed their affirmative for to instance in one for all of this it was said by Tertullian Regula quidem fidei una omnino est sola immobilis irreformabilis c. Hâc lege fidei manente caetera jam disciplinae conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis operante scil proficiente usque in finem gratia Dei This Symbol is the one sufficient immoveable unalterable and unchangeable rule of Faith that admits no increment or decrement but if the integrity and unity of this be preserved in all other things men may take a liberty of enlarging their knowledges and prophecyings according as they are assisted by the grace of God SECT II. Of Heresy and the nature of it and that it is to be accounted according to the strict capacity of Christian Faith and not in Opinions speculative nor ever to pious persons 1. AND thus I have represented a short draught of the Object of Faith and its foundation the next consideration in order to our main design is to consider what was and what ought to be the judgment of the Apostles concerning Heresy For although there are more kinds of vices than there are of vertues yet the number of them is to be taken by accounting the transgressions of their vertues and by the limits of Faith we may also reckon the Analogy and proportions of Heresy that as we have seen who was called faithful by the Apostolical men we may also perceive who were listed by them in the Catalogue of Hereticks that we in our judgmenâ—s may proceed accordingly 2. And first the word Heresy is used in Scripture indifferently in a good sence for a Sect or Division of Opinion and men following it or sometimes in a bad sence for a false Opinion signally condemned but these kind of people were then call'd Antichrists and false Prophets more frequently than Hereticks and then there were many of them in the World But it is
men are much mistaken some in their opinions concerning the truth of them as believing them to be all true some concerning their purpose as thinking them sufficient not only to condemn all those opinions there called heretical but to be a precedent to all Ages of the Church to be free and forward in calling Heretick But he that considers the Catalogues themselves as they are collected by Epiphanius Philastrius and S. Austin shall find that many are reckoned for Hereticks for opinions in matters disputable and undetermined and of no consequence and in these Catalogues of Hereticks there are men numbred for Hereticks which by every side respectively are acquitted so that there is no company of men in the world that admit these Catalogues as good Records or sufficient sentences of condemnation For the Churches of the Reformation I am certain they acquit Aerius for denying prayer for the dead and the Eustathians for denying invocation of Saints And I am partly of opinion that the Church of Rome is not willing to call the Collyridians Hereticks for offering a Cake to the Virgin Mary unless she also will run the hazard of the same sentence for offering Candles to her And that they will be glad with S. Austin l. 6. de haeres c. 86. to excuse the Tertullianists for picturing God in a visible corporal representment And yet these Sects are put in the black Book by Epiphanius and S. Austin and Isidore respectively I remember also that the Osseni are called Hereticks because they refused to worship towards the East and yet in that dissent I find not the malignity of a Heresie nor any thing against an Article of Faith or good manners and it being only in circumstance it were hard if they were otherwise pious men and true believers to send them to Hell for such a trifle The Parermeneutae refused to follow other mens dictates like sheep but would expound Scripture according to the best evidence themselves could find and yet were called Hereticks whether they expounded true or no. The Pauliciani for being offended at crosses the Proclians for saying in a regenerate man all his sins were not quite dead but only curbed and asswaged were called Hereticks and so condemned for ought I know for affirming that which all pious men feel in themselves to be too true And he that will consider how numerous the catalogues are and to what a volume they are come in their last collections to no less than five hundred and twenty for so many heresies and Hereticks are reckoned by Prateolus may think that if a re-trenchment were justly made of truths and all impertinencies and all opinions either still disputable or less considerable the number would much decrease and therefore that the Catalogues are much amiss and the name Heretick is made a Terriculamentum to affright people from their belief or to discountenance the persons of men and disrepute them that their Schooles may be empty and their Disciples few 20. So that I shall not need to instance how that some men were called Hereticks by Philastrius for rejecting the translation of the Lxx. and following the Bible of Aquila wherein the great faults mentioned by Philastrius are that he translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Christum but unctum Dei and instead of Emanuel writes Deus nobiscum But this most concerns them of the Primitive Church with whom the translation of Aquila was in great reputation is enim veluti plus à quibusdam ..... intellexisse laudatur It was supposed he was a great Clerk and understood more than ordinary it may be he did But whether yea or no yet since the other Translators by the confession of Philastrius quaedam praetermisisse necessitate urgente cogerentur if some wise men or unwise did follow a Translatour who understood the Original well for so Aquila had learnt amongst the Jews It was hard to call men Hereticks for following his Translation especially since the other Bibles which were thought to have in them contradictories and it was confessed had omitted some things were excused by necessity and the others necessity of following Aquila when they had no better was not at all considered nor a less crime than heresy laid upon their score Such another was the heresy of the Quartodecimani for the Easterlings were all proclaimed Hereticks for keeping Easter after the manner of the East and as Socrates and Nicephorus report the Bishop of Rome was very forward to Excommunicate all the Bishops of the lesser Asia for observing the Feast according to the Tradition of their Ancestors though they did it modestly quietly and without faction and although they pretended and were as well able to prove their Tradition from S. John of so observing it as the Western Church could prove their Tradition derivative from S. Peter and S. Paul If such things as these make up the Catalogues of Hereticks as we see they did their accounts differ from the Precedents they ought to have followed that is the censures Apostolical and therefore are unsafe precedents for us and unless they took the liberty of using the word heresy in a lower sence than the world now doth since the Councils have been forward in pronouncing Anathema and took it only for a distinct sence and a differing perswasion in matters of opinion and minute Articles we cannot excuse the persons of the men but if they intended the crime of heresy against those opinions as they laid them down in their Catalogues that crime I say which is a work of the flesh which excludes from the Kingdom of Heaven all that I shall say against them is that the causeless curse shall return empty and no man is damned the sooner because his enemy cryes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they that were the Judges and Accusers might erre as well as the persons accused and might need as charitable construction of their opinions and practices as the other And of this we are sure they had no warrant from any rule of Scripture or practice Apostolical for driving so furiously and hastily in such decretory sentences But I am willing rather to believe their sence of the word Heresie was more gentle than with us it is and for that they might have warrant from Scripture 21. But by the way I observe that although these Catalogues are a great instance to shew that they whose Age and spirits were far distant from the Apostles had also other judgments concerning Faith and heresy than the Apostles had and the Ages Apostolical yet these Catalogues although they are reports of heresies in the second and third Ages are not to be put upon the account of those Ages not to be reckoned as an instance of their judgment which although it was in some degrees more culpable than that of their Predecessors yet in respect of the following Ages it was innocent and modest But these Catalogues I speak of were set down according to the sence of the then present
toy in respect of the excellent blessings of peace and charity it were good that Alexander and Arius should leave contending keep their opinions to themselves ask each other forgiveness and give mutual toleration This is the substance of Constantine's letter and it contains in it much reason if he did not undervalue the Question but it seems it was not then thought a question of Faith but of nicety of dispute they both did believe one God and the holy Trinity Now then that he afterward called the Nicene Council it was upon occasion of the vileness of the men of the Arian part their eternal discord and pertinacious wrangling and to bring peace into the Church that was the necessity and in order to it was the determination of the Article But for the Article it self the Letter declares what opinion he had of that and this Letter was by Socrates called a wonderful exhortation full of grave and sober counsels and such as Hosius himself who was the messenger pressed with all earnestness with all the skill and Authority he had 27. I know the opinion the world had of the Article afterward is quite differing from this censure given of it before and therefore they have put it into the Creed I suppose to bring the world to unity and to prevent Sedition in this Question and the accidental blasphemies which were occasioned by their curious talkings of such secret mysteries and by their illiterate resolutions But although the Article was determined with an excellent spirit and we all with much reason profess to believe it yet it is another consideration whether or no it might not have been better determined if with more simplicity and another yet whether or no since many of the Bishops who did believe this thing yet did not like the nicety and curiosity of expressing it it had not been more agreeable to the practice of the Apostles to have made a determination of the Article by way of Exposition of the Apostles Creed and to have lest this in a rescript for record to all posterity and not to have enlarged the Creed with it for since it was an Explication of an Article of the Creed of the Apostles as Sermons are of places of Scripture it was thought by some that Scripture might with good profit and great truth be expounded and yet the Expositions not put into the Canon or go for Scripture but that left still in the naked Original simplicity and so much the rather since that Explication was further from the foundation and though most certainly true yet not penn'd by so infallible a spirit as was that of the Apostles and therefore not with so much evidence as certainty And if they had pleased they might have made use of an admirable precedent to this and many other great and good purposes no less than of the blessed Apostles whose Symbol they might have imitated with as much simplicity as they did the Expressions of Scripture when they first composed it For it is most considerable that although in reason every clause in the Creed should be clear and so inopportune and unapt to variety of interpretation that there might be no place left for several sences or variety of Expositions yet when they thought fit to insert some mysteries into the Creed which in Scripture were expressed in so mysterious words that the last and most explicite sence would still be latent yet they who if ever any did understood all the sences and secrets of it thought it not fit to use any words but the words of Scripture particularly in the Articles of Christs descending into Hell and sitting at the right hand of God to shew us that those Creeds are best which keep the very words of Scripture and that Faith is best which hath greatest simplicity and that it is better in all cases humbly to submit than curiously to enquire and pry into the mystery under the cloud and to hazard our Faith by improving our knowledge If the Nicene Fathers had done so too possibly the Church would never have repented it 28. And indeed the experience the Church had afterwards shewed that the Bishops and Priests were not satisfied in all circumstances nor the schism appeased nor the persons agreed nor the Canons accepted nor the Article understood nor any thing right but when they were overborn with Authority which Authority when the scales turned did the same service and promotion to the contrary 29. But it is considerable that it was not the Article or the thing it self that troubled the disagreeing persons but the manner of representing it For the five Dissenters Eusebius of Nicomedia Theognis Maris Theonas and Secundus believed Christ to be very God of very God but the clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they derided as being perswaded by their Logick that he was neither of the substance of the Father by division as a piece of a lump nor derivation as children from their Parents nor by production as buds from trees and no body could tell them any other way at that time and that made the fire to burn still And that was it I said if the Article had been with more simplicity and less nicety determined charity would have gained more and faith would have lost nothing And we shall find the wisest of them all for so Eusebius Pamphilus was esteemed published a Creed or Confession in the Synod and though he and all the rest believed that great mystery of Godliness God manifested in the flesh yet he was not fully satisfied nor so soon of the clause of one substance till he had done a little violence to his own understanding for even when he had subscribed to the clause of one substance he does it with a protestation that heretofore he never had been acquainted nor accustomed himself to such speeches And the sence of the word was either so ambiguous or their meaning so uncertain that Andreus Fricius does with some probability dispute that the Nicene Fathers by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did mean Patris similitudinem non essentiae unitatem Sylva 4. c. 1. And it was so well understood by personages disinterested that when Arius and Euzoius had confessed Christ to be Deus verbum without inserting the clause of one substance the Emperour by his Letter approved of his Faith and restored him to his Countrey and Office and the Communion of the Church And a long time after although the Article was believed with nicety enough yet when they added more words still to the mystery and brought in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying there were three hypostases in the holy Trinity it was so long before it could be understood that it was believed therefore because they would not oppose their Superiours or disturb the peace of the Church in things which they thought could not be understood in so much that Saint Hierom writ to Damascus in these words Discerne si placet obsecro non timebo
secure himself that in all the mysteries of Religion taught in Scripture he shall certainly understand and explicitely believe that sence that God intended For to this purpose there are many considerations 4. First There are so many thousands of Copies that were writ by persons of several interests and perswasions such different understandings and tempers such distinct abilities and weaknesses that it is no wonder there is so great variety of readings both in the Old Testament and in the New In the Old Testament the Jews pretend that the Christians have corrupted many places on purpose to make symphony between both the Testaments On the other side the Christians have had so much reason to suspect the Jews that when Aquila had translated the Bible in their Schools and had been taught by them they rejected the Edition many of them and some of them called it heresy to follow it And Justin Martyr justified it to Triphon that the Jews had defalk'd many sayings from the Books of the old Prophets and amongst the rest he instances in that of the Psalm Dicite in nationibus quia Dominus regnavit à ligno The last words they have cut off and prevailed so far in it that to this day none of our Bibles have it but if they ought not to have it then Justin Martyrs Bible had more in it than it should have for there it was so that a fault there was either under or over But however there are infinite Readings in the New-Testament for in that I will instance some whole Verses in one that are not in another and there was in some Copies of Saint Marks Gospel in the last Chapter a whole verse a Chapter it was anciently called that is not found in our Bibles as S. Hierom. ad Hedibiam q. 3. notes The words he repeats Lib. 2. contr Polygamos Et illi satis faciebant dicentes saeculum istud iniquitatis incredulitatis substantia est quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam These words are thought by some to savour of Manichaism and for ought I can find were therefore rejected out of many Greek Copies and at last out of the Latine Now suppose that a Manichee in disputation should urge this place having found it in his Bible if a Catholick should answer him by saying it is Apocryphal and not found in divers Greek Copies might not the Manichee ask how it came in if it was not the word of God and if it was how came it out and at last take the same liberty of rejecting any other Authority which shall be alledged against him if he can find any Copy that may favour him however that favour be procured and did not the Ebionites reject all the Epistles of Saint Paul upon pretence he was an enemy to the Law of Moses indeed it was boldly and most unreasonably done but if one tittle or one Chapter of St. Mark be called Apocryphal for being suspected of Manichaisme it is a plea that will too much justifie others in their taking and chusing what they list But I will not urge it so far but is not there as much reason for the fierce Lutherans to reject the Epistle of Saint James for favouring justification by works or the Epistle to the Hebrews upon pretence that the sixth and tenth Chapters do favour Novatianisme especially since it was by some famous Churches at first not accepted even by the Church of Rome her self The Parable of the woman taken in adultery which is now in Joh. 8. Eusebius says was not in any Gospel but the Gospel secundum Hebraeos and St. Hierom makes it doubtful and so does St. Chrysostome and Euthymius the first not vouchsafing to explicate it in his Homilies upon St. John the other affirming it not to be found in the exacter Copies I shall not need to urge that there are some words so near in sound that the Scribes might easily mistake There is one famous one of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which yet some Copies read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sence is very unlikely though the words be near and there needs some little luxation to strain this latter reading to a good sence That famous precept of Saint Paul that the women must pray with a covering on their head 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the Angels hath brought into the Church an opinion that Angels are present in Churches and are Spectatours of our devotion and deportment Such an opinion if it should meet with peevish opposites on the one side and confident Hyperaspists on the other might possibly make a Sect and here were a clear ground for the affirmative and yet who knows but that it might have been a mistake of the Transcribers for if it were read as Gothofrid and some others would have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the sence be women in publick Assemblies must wear a vail by reason of the Companies of the young men there present it would be no ill exchange for the little change of some letters in a word to make so probable so clear a sence of the place But the instances in this kind are too many as appears in the variety of readings in several Copies proceeding from the negligence or ignorance of the Transcribers or the malicious endeavour of Hereticks or the inserting Marginal Notes into the Text or the nearness of several words Indeed there is so much evidence of this particular that it hath encouraged the servants of the Vulgar Translation for so some are now adays to prefer that Translation before the Original for although they have attempted that proposition with very ill success yet that they could think it possible to be proved is an Argument there is much variety and alterations in divers Texts for if there were not it were impudence to pretend a Translation and that none of the best should be better than the Original But so it is that this variety of reading is not of slight consideration for although it be demonstrably true that all things necessary to Faith and good manners are preserved from alteration and corruption because they are of things necessary and they could not be necessary unless they were delivered to us God in his goodness and his justice having obliged himself to preserve that which he hath bound us to observe and keep yet in other things which God hath not obliged himself so punctually to preserve in these things since variety of reading is crep◠in every reading takes away a degree of certainty from any proposition derivative from those places so read And if some Copies especially if they be publick and notable omit a verse or a tittle every argument from such a tittle or verse loses much of its strength and reputation and we find it in a great instance For when in probation of the
mystery of the glorious Unity in Trinity we alledge that saying of Saint John there are three which bear witness in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one the Antitrinitarians think they have answered the Argument by saying the Syrian Translation and divers Greek Copies have not that verse in them and therefore being of doubtful Authority cannot conclude with certainty in a Question of Faith And there is an instance on the Catholick part For when the Arrians urge the saying of our Saviour No man knows that day and hour viz. of Judgment no not the Son but the Father only to prove that the Son knows not all things and therefore cannot be God in the proper sence St. Ambrose thinks he hath answered the Argument by saying those words no not the Son was thrust into the Text by the fraud of the Arrians So that here we have one objection which must first be cleared and made infallible before we can be ascertain'd in any such Question as to call them Hereticks that dissent 5. Secondly I consider that there are very many sences and designs of expounding Scripture and when the Grammatical sence is found out we are many times never the nearer it is not that which was intended for there is in very many Scriptures a double sence a literal and a Spiritual for the Scripture is a Book written within and without Apoc. 5. And both these sences are sub-divided For the literal sence is either natural or figurative And the Spiritual is sometimes allegorical sometimes anagogical nay sometimes there are divers literal sences in the same sentence as Saint Austin excellently proves in divers places and it appears in divers quotations in the New Testament where the Apostles and Divine Writers bring the same Testimony to divers purposes and particularly St. Paul's making that saying of the Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee to be an Argument of Christs Resurrection and a designation or ordination to his Pontificate is an instance very famous in his first and fifth Chapters to the Hebrews But now there being such variety of sences in Scripture and but few places so marked out as not to be capable of divers sences if mâ—n will write Commentaries as Herod made Orations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what infallible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be left whereby to judge of the certain dogmatical resolute sence of such places which have been the matter of Question For put case a Question were commenced concerning the degrees of glory in heaven as there is in the Schools a noted one To shew an inequality of reward Christs Parable is brought of the reward of ten Cities and of five according to the divers improvement of the Talents this sence is mystical and yet very probable and understood by men for ought I know to this very sence And the result of the Argument is made good by Saint Paul as one star differeth from another in glory so shall it be in the resurrection of the dead Now suppose another should take the same liberty of Expounding another Parable to a mystical sence and Interpretation as all Parables must be expounded then the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard and though differing in labour yet having an equal reward to any mans understanding may seem very strongly to prove the contrary and as if it were of purpose and that it were primum intentum of the Parable the Lord of the Vineyard determined the point resolutely upon the mutiny and repining of them that had born the burthen and heat of the day I will give unto this last even as to thee which to my sence seems to determine the Question of degrees They that work but little and they that work long shall not be distinguished in the reward though accidentally they were in the work And if this opinion could but answer St. Pauls words it stands as fair and perhaps fairer than the other Now if we look well upon the words of Saint Paul we shall find he speaks nothing at all of diversity of degrees of glory in beatified bodies but the differences of glory in bodies heavenly and earthly There are says he bodies earthly and there are heavenly bodies And one is the glory of the earthly another the glory of the heavenly one glory of the Sun another of the Moon c. So shall it be in the Resurrection For it is sown in corruption it is raised in incorruption Plainly thus our bodies in the Resurrection shall differ as much from our bodies here in the state of corruption as one Star does from another And now suppose a Sect should be commenced upon this Question upon lighter and vainer many have been either side must resolve to answer the others Argument whether they can or no and to deny to each other a liberty of Expounding the Parable to such a sence and yet themselves must use it or want an Argument But men use to be unjust in their own cases And were it not better to leave each other to their liberty and seek to preserve their own charity For when the words are capable of a mystical or a divers sence I know not why mens fancies or understandings should be more bound to be like one another than their faces And either in all such places of Scripture a liberty must be indulged to every honest and peaceable wise man or else all Argument from such places must be wholly declined Now although I instanced in a Question which by good fortune never came to open defiance yet there have been Sects framed upon lighter grounds more inconsiderable Questions which have been disputed on either side with Arguments less material and less pertinent Saint Austin laught at the Donatists for bringing that saying of the Spouse in the Canticles to prove their Schism Indica mihi ubi pascas ubi cubes in meridie For from thence they concluded the residence of the Church was only in the South part of the World only in Africa It was but a weak way of Argument yet the Fathers were free enough to use such mediums to prove mysteries of great concernment but yet again when they speak either against an Adversary or with consideration they deny that such mystical sences can sufficiently confirm a Question of Faith But I shall instance in the great Question of Rebaptization of Hereticks which many Saints and Martyrs and Confessours and divers Councils and almost all Asia and Africa did once believe and practise Their grounds for the invalidity of the baptism by a Heretick were such mystical words as these Oleum peccatoris non impinguet caput meum Ps. 140. And Qui baptizatur à mortuo quid proficit lavatio ejus Ecclus. 34. And Ab aquâ alienâ abstinete Prov. 5. And Deus peccatores non exaudit Joh. 9. And he that is not with me is against me Luke 11. I am not sure the other part had Arguments so
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
doctrine of the Church of Rome which they learnt from St. Augustin and others also do from hence baptize Infants though with a less opinion of its absolute necessity And yet the same manner of precept in the same form of words in the same manner of threatning by an exclusive negative shall not enjoyn us to communicate Infants though damnation at least in form of words be exactly and per omnia alike appendant to the neglect of holy Baptism and the venerable Eucharist If nisi quis renatus shall conclude against the Anabaptist for necessity of baptizing Infants as sure enough we say it does why shall not an equal nisi comederitis bring Infants to the holy Communion The Primitive Church for some two whole ages did follow their own principles where ever they led them and seeing that upon the same ground equal results must follow they did Communicate Infants as soon as they had baptized them And why the Church of Rome should not do so too being she expounds nisi comederitis of Oral manducation I cannot yet learn a reason And for others that expound it of a spiritual manducation why they shall not allow the disagreeing part the same liberty of expounding nisi quis renatus too I by no means can understand And in these cases no external determiner can be pretended in answer For whatsoever is extrinsecal to the words as Councils Traditions Church Authority and Fathers either have said nothing at all or have concluded by their practice contrary to the present opinion as is plain by their communicating Infants by virtue of nisi comederitis 8. Fifthly I shall not need to urge the mysteriousness of some points in Scripture which ex natura rei are hard to be understood though very plainly represented For there are some secreta Theologiae which are only to be understood by persons very holy and spiritual which are rather to be felt than discoursed of and therefore if peradventure they be offered to publick consideration they will therefore be opposed because they run the same fortune with many other Questions that is not to be understood and so much the rather because their understanding that is the feeling such secrets of the Kingdom are not the results of Logick and Philosophy nor yet of publick revelation but of the publick spirit privately working and in no man is a duty but in all that have it is a reward and is not necessary for all but given to some producing its operations not regularly but upon occasions personal necessities and new emergencies Of this nature are the spirit of obsignation belief of particular salvation special influences and comforts coming from a sense of the spirit of adoption actual fervours and great complacencies in devotion spiritual joyes which are little drawings aside of the curtains of peace and eternity and antepasts of immortality But the not understanding the perfect constitution and temper of these mysteries and it is hard for any man so to understand as to make others do so too that feel them not is cause that in â—any Questions of secret Theology by being very apt and easie to be mistaken there is a necessity in forbearing one another and this consideration would have been of good use in the Question between Soto and Catharinus both for the preservation of their charity and explication of the mystery 9. Sixthly But here it will not be unseasonable to consider that all systems and principles of science are expressed so that either by reason of the Universality of the terms and subject matter or the infinite variety of humane understandings and these peradventure swayed by interest or determined by things accidental and extrinsecal they seem to divers men nay to the same men upon divers occasions to speak things extreamly disparate and sometimes contrary but very often of great variety And this very thing happens also in Scripture that if it were not in re sacrâ seriâ it were excellent sport to observe how the same place of Scripture serves several turns upon occasion and they at that time believe the words sound nothing else whereas in the liberty of their judgment and abstracting from that occasion their Commentaries understand them wholly to a differing sence It is a wonder of what excellent use to the Church of Rome is tibi dabo claves It was spoken to Peter and none else sometimes and therefore it concerns him and his Successours only the rest are to derive from him And yet if you question them for their Sacrament of Penance and Priestly Absolution then tibi dabo claves comes in and that was spoken to S. Peter and in him to the whole College of the Apostles and in them to the whole Hierarchy If you question why the Pope pretends to free souls from Purgatory tibi dabo claves is his warrant but if you tell him the Keys are only for binding and loosing on Earth directly and in Heaven consequently and that Purgatory is a part of Hell or rather neither Earth nor Heaven nor Hell and so the Keys seem to have nothing to do with it then his Commission is to be enlarged by a suppletory of reason and consequences and his Keys shall unlock this difficulty for it is clavis scientiae as well as authoritatis And these Keys shall enable him to expound Scriptures infallibly to determine Questions to preside in Councils to dictate to all the World Magisterially to rule the Church to dispence with Oaths to abrogate Laws And if his Key of knowledge will not the Key of Authority shall and tibi dabo claves shall answer for all We have an instance in the single fancy of one man what rare variety of matter is afforded from those plain words of Oravi pro te Petre Luke 22. for that place says Bellarmine is otherwise to be understood of Peter otherwise of the Popes and otherwise of the Church of Rome And pro te signifies that Christ prayed that Peter might neither err personally nor judicially and that Peters Successors if they did err personally might not err judicially and that the Roman Church might not err personally All this variety of sence is pretended by the fancy of one man to be in a few words which are as plain and simple as are any words in Scripture And what then in those thousands that are intricate So is done with pasce oves which a man would think were a Commission as innocent and guiltless of designs as the sheep in the folds are But if it be asked why the Bishop of Rome calls himself Universal Bishop Pasces oves is his warrant Why he pretends to a power of deposing Princes Pasce oves said Christ to Peter the second time If it be demanded why also he pretends to a power of authorizing his subjects to kill him Pasce agnos said Christ the third time And pasce is doce and pasce is Impera and pasce is occide Now if others should take the same
unreasonableness I will not say but the same liberty in expounding Scripture or if it be not licence taken but that the Scripture it self is so full and redundant in sences quite contrary what man soever or what company of men soever shall use this principle will certainly find such rare productions from several places that either the unreasonableness of the thing will discover the errour of the proceeding or else there will be a necessity of permitting a great liberty of judgment where is so infinite variety without limit or mark of necessary determination If the first then because an errour is so obvious and ready to our selves it will be great imprudence or tyranny to be hasty in judging others but if the latter it is it that I contend for for it is most unreasonable when either the thing it self ministers variety or that we take licence to our selves in variety of interpretations or proclaim to all the world our great weakness by our actually being deceived that we should either prescribe to others magisterially when we are in errour or limit their understandings when the thing it self affords liberty and variety SECT IV. Of the difficulty of expounding Scripture 1. THese considerations are taken from the nature of Scripture it self but then if we consider that we have no certain ways of determining places of difficulty and question infallibly and certainly but that we must hope to be saved in the belief of things plain necessary and fundamental and our pious endeavour to find out Gods meaning in such places which he hath left under a cloud for other great ends reserved to his own knowledge we shall see a very great necessity in allowing a liberty in Prophesying without prescribing authoritatively to other mens consciences and becoming Lords and Masters of their Faith Now the means of expounding Scripture are either external or internal For the external as Church Authority Tradition Fathers Councils and Decrees of Bishops they are of a distinct consideration and follow after in their order But here we will first consider the invalidity and uncertainty of all those means of expounding Scripture which are more proper and internal to the nature of the thing The great Masters of Commentaries some whereof have undertaken to know all mysteries have propounded many ways to expound Scripture which indeed are excellent helps but not infallible assistances both because themselves are but moral instruments which force not truth ex abscondito as also because they are not infallibly used and applyed 1. Sometime the sence is drawn forth by the context and connexion of parts It is well when it can be so But when there is two or three antecedents and subjects spoken of what man or what rule shall ascertain me that I make my reference true by drawing the relation to such an antecedent to which I have a mind to apply it another hath not For in a contexture where one part does not always depend upon another where things of differing natures intervene and interrupt the first intentions there it is not always very probable to expound Scripture and take its meaning by its proportion to the neighbouring words But who desires satisfaction in this may read the observation verified in S. Gregory's Morals upon Job lib. 5. c. 22. and the instances he there brings are excellent proof that this way of Interpretation does not warrant any man to impose his Expositions upon the belief and understanding of other men too confidently and magisterially 2. Secondly Another great pretence or medium is the conference of places which Illyricus calls ingens remedium foelicissimam expositionem sanctae scripturae and indeed so it is if well and temperately used but then we are beholding to them that do so for there is no rule that can constrain them to it for comparing of places is of so indefinite capacity that if there be ambiguity of words variety of sence alteration of circumstances or difference of stile amongst Divine Writers then there is nothing that may be more abused by wilful people or may more easily deceive the unwary or that may more amuse the most intelligent Observer The Anabaptists take advantage enough in this proceeding and indeed so may any one that list and when we pretend against them the necessity of baptizing all by authority of nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ spiritu they have a parallel for it and tell us that Christ will baptize us with the holy Ghost and with fire and that one place expounds the other and because by fire is not meant an Element or any thing that is natural but an Allegory and figurative expression of the same thing so also by water may be meant the figure signifying the effect or manner of operation of the holy Spirit Fire in one place and water in the other do but represent to us that Christs baptism is nothing else but the cleansing and purifying us by the holy Ghost But that which I here note as of greatest concernment and which in all reason ought to be an utter overthrow to this topick 〈◊〉 an universal abuse of it among those that use it most and when two places seem to have the same expression or if a word have a double signification because in this place it may have such a sence therefore it must because in one of the places the sence is to their purpose they conclude that therefore it must be so in the other too An instance I give in the great Question between the Socinians and the Catholicks If any place be urged in which our blessed Saviour is called God they shew you two or three where the word â—od is taken in a depressed sence for a quasi Deus as when God said to Moses Constitui te Deum Pharaonis and hence they argue because I can shew the word is used for a Deus factus therefore no argument is sufficient to prove Christ to be Deus verus from the appellative of Deus And might not another argue to the exact contrary and as well urge that Moses is Deus verus because in some places the word Deus is used pro Deo aeterno Both ways the Argument concludes impiously and unreasonably It is a fallacy à posse ad esse affirmativè because breaking of bread is sometimes used for an Eucharistical manducation in Scripture therefore I shall not from any testimony of Scripture affirming the first Christians to have broken bread together conclude that they lived hospitably and in common society Because it may possibly be eluded therefore it does not signifie any thing And this is the great way of answering all the Arguments that can be brought against any thing that any man hath a mind to defend and any man that reads any controversies of any side shall find as many instances of this vanity almost as he finds arguments from Scripture this fault was of old noted by S. Austin for then they had got the trick and
neither expressed nor involved I understand not But then if you extend the analogie of Faith further than that which is proper to the rule or Symbol of Faith then every man expounds Scripture according to the analogie of Faith but what His own Faith which Faith if it be questioned I am no more bound to expound according to the analogie of another mans Faith than he to expound according to the analogie of mine And this is it that is complained on of all sides that overvalue their own opinions Scripture seems so clearly to speak what they believe that they wonder all the world does not see it as clear as they do but they satisfie themselves with saying that it is because they come with prejudice whereas if they had the true belief that is theirs they would easily see what they see And this is very true For if they did believe as others believe they would expound Scriptures to their sence but if this be expounding according to the analogie of Faith it signifies no more than this Be you of my mind and then my arguments will seem concluding and my Authorities and Allegations pressing and pertinent And this will serve on all sides and therefore will doe but little service to the determination of Questions or prescribing to other mens consciences on any side 5. Lastly Consulting the Originals is thought a great matter to Interpretation of Scriptures But this is to small purpose For indeed it will expound the Hebrew and the Greek and rectifie Translations But I know no man that says that the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek are easie and certain to be understood and that they are hard in Latine and English The difficulty is in the thing however it be expressed the least is in the language If the Original Languages were our mother tongue Scripture is not much the easier to us and a natural Greek or a Jew can with no more reason or authority obtrude his Interpretations upon other mens consciences than a man of another Nation Add to this that the inspection of the Original is no more certain way of Interpretation of Scripture now than it was to the Fathers and Primitive Ages of the Church and yet he that observes what infinite variety of Translations of the Bible were in the first Ages of the Church as S. Hierom observes and never a one like another will think that we shall differ as much in our Interpretations as they did and that the medium is as uncertain to us as it was to them and so it is witness the great number of late Translations and the infinite number of Commentaries which are too pregnant an Argument that we neither agree in the understanding of the words nor of the sence 6. The truth is all these ways of Interpreting of Scripture which of themselves are good helps are made either by design or by our infirmities ways of intricating and involving Scriptures in greater difficulty because men do not learn their doctrines from Scripture but come to the understanding of Scripture with preconceptions and idea's of doctrines of their own and then no wonder that Scriptures look like Pictures wherein every man in the room believes they look on him only and that wheresoever he stands or how often soever he changes his station So that now what was intended for a remedy becomes the promoter of our disease and our meat becomes the matter of sickness And the mischief is the wit of man cannot find a remedy for it for there is no rule no limit no certain principle by which all men may be guided to a certain and so infallible an Interpretation that he can with any equity prescribe to others to believe his Interpretations in places of controversie or ambiguity A man would think that the memorable Prophecy of Jacob that the Scepter should not depart from Judah till Shiloh come should have been so clear a determination of the time of the Messias that a Jew should never have doubted it to have been verified in Jesus of Nazareth and yet for this so clear vaticination they have no less than twenty six Answers S. Paul and S. James seem to speak a little diversly concerning Justification by Faith and Works and yet to my understanding it is very easie to reconcile them but all men are not of my mind for Osiander in his confutation of the book which Melancthon wrote against him observes that there are twenty several opinions concerning Justification all drawn from the Scriptures by the men only of the Augustan Confession There are sixteen several opinions concerning original sin and as many definitions of the Sacraments as there are Sects of men that disagree about them 7. And now what help is there for us in the midst of these uncertainties If we follow any one Translation or any one mans Commentary what rule shall we have to chuse the right by or is there any one man that hath translated perfectly or expounded infallibly No Translation challenges such a prerogative to be authentick but the Vulgar Latine and yet see with what good success For when it was declared authentick by the Council of Trent Sixtus put forth a Copie much mended of what it was and tied all men to follow that but that did not satisfie for Pope Clement revives and corrects it in many places and still the Decree remains in a changed subject And secondly that Translation will be very unapt to satisfie in which one of their own men Isidore Clarius a Monk of Brescia found and mended eight thousand faults besides innumerable others which he says he pretermitted And then thirdly to shew how little themselves were satisfied with it divers learned men among them did new translate the Bible and thought they did God and the Church good service in it So that if you take this for your precedent you are sure to be mistaken infinitely If you take any other the Authors themselves do not promise you any security If you resolve to follow any one as far only as you see cause then you only do wrong or right by chance for you have certainty just proportionable to your own skill to your own infallibility If you resolve to follow any one whithersoever he leads we shall oftentimes come thither where we shall see our selves become ridiculous as it happened in the case of Spiridion Bishop of Cyprus who so resolved to follow his old book that when an eloquent Bishop who was desired to Preach read his Text Tu autem tolle cubile tuum ambula Spiridion was very angry with him because in his book it was tolle lectum tuum and thought it arrogance in the preacher to speak better Latine than his Translator had done And if it be thus in Translations it is far worse in Expositions Quia scil Scripturam sacram pro ipsa sui altitudine non uno eodemque sensu omnes accipium ut penè quot homines tot illic sententiae erui posse
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
plain and unless the Authority of a Council be so great a prejudice as to make us to do violence to our understanding so as not to disbelieve the Decree because it seems contrary to Scripture but to believe it agrees with Scripture though we know not how therefore because the Council hath decreed it unless I say we be bound in duty to be so obediently blind and sottish we are sure that there are some Councils which are pretended General that have retired from the publick notorious words and sence of Scripture For what wit of man can reconcile the Decree of the thirteenth Session of the Council of Constance with Scripture in which Session the half Communion was decreed in defiance of Scripture and with a non obstante to Christs institution For in the Preface of the Decree Christs institution and the practice of the Primitive Church is expressed and then with a non obstante Communion in one kind is established Now then suppose the non obstante in the form of words relates to the Primitive practice yet since Christs institution was taken notice of in the first words of the Decree and the Decree made quite contrary to it let the non obstante relate whither it will the Decree not to call it a defiance is a plain recession from the institution of Christ and therefore the non obstante will refer to that without any sensible errour and indeed for all the excuses to the contrary the Decree was not so discreetly framed but that in the very form of words the defiance and the non obstante is too plainly relative to the first words For what sence can there be in the first licet else licet Christus in utraque specie and licet Ecclesia Primitiva c. tamen hoc non obstante c. the first licet being a relative term as well as the second licet must be bounded with some correspondent But it matters not much let them whom it concerns enjoy the benefit of all excuses they can imagine it is certain Christs institution and the Councils sanction are as contrary as light and darkness Is it possible for any man to contrive a way to make the Decree of the Council of Trent commanding the publick Offices of the Church to be in Latine friends with the fourteenth Chapter of the Corinthians It is not amiss to observe how the Hyperaspists of that Council sweat to answer the Allegations of St. Paul and the wisest of them do it so extreamly poor that it proclaims to all the world that the strongest man that is cannot eat Iron or swallow a Rock Now then would it not be an unspeakable Tyranny to all wise persons who as much hate to have their souls enslaved as their bodies imprisoned to command them to believe that these Decrees are agreeable to the word of God Upon whose understanding soever these are imposed they may at the next Session reconcile them to a crime and make any sin sacred or perswade him to believe propositions contradictory to a Mathematical demonstration All the Arguments in the World that can be brought to prove the infallibility of Councils cannot make it so certain that they are infallible as these two instances do prove infallibly that these were deceived and if ever we may safely make use of our reason and consider whether Councils have erred or no we cannot by any reason be more assured that they have or have not than we have in these particulars so that either our reason is of no manner of use in the discussion of this Question and the thing it self is not at all to be disputed or if it be we are certain that these actually were deceived and we must never hope for a clearer evidence in any dispute And if these be others might have been if they did as these did that is depart from their Rule And it was wisely said of Cusanus Notandum est experimento rerum universale Concilium posse deficere The experience of it is notorious that Councils have erred And all the Arguments against experience are but plain sophistry 3. And therefore I make no scruple to slight the Decrees of such Councils wherein the proceedings were as prejudicate and unreasonable as in the Council wherein Abailardus was condemned where the presidents having pronounced Damnamus they at the lower end being awaked at the noise heard the latter part of it and concurred as far as Mnamus went and that was as good as Damnamus for if they had been awake at the pronouncing the whole word they would have given sentence accordingly But by this means Saint Bernard numbred the major part of voices against his Adversary Abailardus And as far as these men did do their duty the duty of Priests and Judges and wise men so we may presume them to be assisted But no further But I am content this because but a private Assembly shall pass for no instance But what shall we say of all the Arrian Councils celebrated with so great fancy and such numerous Assemblies we all say that they erred And it will not be sufficient to say they were not lawful Councils For they were conven'd by that Authority which all the World knows did at that time convocate Councils and by which as it is confessed and is notorious the first eight Generals did meet that is by the Authority of the Emperour all were called and as many and more did come to them than came to the most famous Council of Nice So that the Councils were lawful and if they did not proceed lawfully and therefore did err this is to say that Councils are then not deceived when they doe their duty when they judge impartially when they decline interest when they follow their Rule but this says also that it is not infallibly certain that they will doe so for these did not and therefore the others may be deceived as well as these were But another thing is in the wind for Councils not confirmed by the Pope have no warrant that they shall not err and they not being confirmed therefore fail'd But whether is the Popes confirmation after the Decree or before It cannot be supposed before for there is nothing to be confirmed till the Decree be made and the Article composed But if it be after then possibly the Popes Decree may be requisite in solemnity of Law and to make the Authority popular publick and humane but the Decree is true or false before the Popes confirmation and is not at all altered by the supervening Decree which being postnate to the Decree alters not what went before Nunquam enim crescit ex postfacto praeteriti aestimatio is the voice both of Law and reason So that it cannot make it divine and necessary to be heartily believed It may make it lawful not make it true that is it may possibly by such means become a Law but not a truth I speak now upon supposition the Popes
the Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia that they should feed the flock of God and the great Bishop and Shepheard should give them an immarcescible Crown plainly implying that from whence they derived their Authority from him they were sure of a reward in pursuance of which S. Cyprian laid his Argument upon this basis Nam cùm statutum sit omnibus nobis c. singulis pastoribus portio gregis c. Did not S. Paul call to the Bishops of Ephesus to feed the flock of God of which the holy Ghost hath made them Bishops or Over-seers And that this very Commission was spoken to Saint Peter not in a personal but a publick capacity and in him spoke to all the Apostles we see attested by S. Austin and S. Ambrose and generally by all Antiquity and it so concern'd even every Priest that Damasus was willing enough to have S. Hierom explicate many questions for him And Liberius writes an Epistle to Athanasius with much modesty requiring his advice in a Question of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That I also may be perswaded without all doubting of those things which you shall be pleased to command me Now Liberius needed not to have troubled himself to have writ into the East to Athanasius for if he had but seated himself in his Chair and made the dictate the result of his pen and ink would certainly have taught him and all the Church but that the good Pope was ignorant that either pasce oves was his own Charter and Prerogative or that any other words of Scripture had made him to be infallible or if he was not ignorant of it he did very ill to complement himself out of it So did all those Bishops of Rome that in that troublesome and unprofitable Question of Easter being unsatisfied in the supputation of the Egyptians and the definitions of the Mathematical Bishops of Alexandria did yet require and intreat S. Ambrose to tell them his opinion as he himself witnesses If pasce oves belongs onely to the Pope by primary title in these cases the sheep came to feed the Shepheard which though it was well enough in the thing is very ill for the pretensions of the Roman Bishops And if we consider how little many of the Popes have done toward feeding the sheep of Christ we shall hardly determine which is the greater prevarication that the Pope should claim the whole Commission to be granted to him or that the execution of the Commission should be wholly passed over to others And it may be there is a mystery in it that since S. Peter sent a Bishop with his staffe to raise up a Disciple of his from the dead who was afterward Bishop of Triers the Popes of Rome never wear a Pastoral staff except it be in that Diocese says Aquinas for great reason that he who does not doe the office should not bear the Symbol But a man would think that the Pope's Master of the Ceremonies was ill advised not to assigne a Pastoral staffe to him who pretends the Commission of pasce oves to belong to him by prime right and origination But this is not a business to be merry in 6. But the great support is expected from Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam c. Now there being so great difference in the exposition of these words by persons dis-interessed who if any might be allowed to judge in this Question it is certain that neither one sense nor other can be obtruded for an Article of Faith much less as a Catholicon in stead of all by constituting an Authority which should guide us in all Faith and determine us in all Questions For if the Church was not built upon the person of Peter then his Successors can challenge nothing from this instance now that it was the confession of Peter upon which the Church was to rely for ever we have witnesses very credible S. Ignatius S. Basil S. Hilary S. Gregory Nyssen S. Gregory the Great S. Austin S. Cyril of Alexandria Isidore Pelusiot and very many more And although all these witnesses concurring cannot make a proposition to be true yet they are sufficient witnesses that it was not the Universal belief of Christendom that the Church was built upon S. Peter's person Cardinal Peron hath a fine fancy to elude this variety of Exposition and the consequents of it For saith he these Expositions are not contrary or exclusive of each other but inclusive and consequent to each other For the Church is founded casually upon the confession of S. Peter formally upon the ministry of his person and this was a reward or a consequent of the former So that these Expositions are both true but they are conjoyn'd as mediate and immediate direct and collateral literal and moral original and perpetuall accessory and temporal the one consign'd at the beginning the other introduced upon occasion For before the spring of the Arrian heresy the Fathers expounded these words of the person of Peter but after the Arrians troubled them the Fathers finding great Authority and Energy in this confession of Peter for the establishment of the natural filiation of the Son of God to advance the reputation of these words and the force of the Argument gave themselves licence to expound these words to the present advantage and to make the confession of Peter to be the foundation of the Church that if the Arrians should encounter this Authority they might with more prejudice to their persons declaim against their cause by saying they overthrew the foundation of the Church Besides that this answer does much dishonour the reputation of the Fathers integrity and makes their interpretations less credible as being made not of knowledge or reason but of necessity and to serve a present turn it is also false for Ignatius expounds it in a spiritual sense which also the Liturgy attributed to S. James calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Origen expounds it mystically to a third purpose but exclusively to this And all these were before the Arrian Controversy But if it be lawfull to make such unproved observations it would have been to better purpose and more reason to have observed it thus The Fathers so long as the Bishop of Rome kept himself to the limits prescribed him by Christ and indulged to him by the Constitution or concession of the Church were unwary and apt to expound this place of the person of Peter but when the Church began to enlarge her phylacteries by the favour of Princes and the sunshine of a prosperous fortune and the Pope by the advantage of the Imperial Seat and other accidents began to invade upon the other Bishops and Patriarchs then that he might have no colour from Scripture for such new pretensions they did most generally turn the stream of their expositions
a napkin I am not so well assured I am certain the other is not And since another man's answering for me will not hinder but that I also shall answer for myself as it concerns him to see he does not wilfully misguide me so it concerns me to see that he shall not if I can help it if I cannot it will not be required at my hands whether it be his fault or his invincible errour I shall be charged with neither 4. This is no other then what is enjoyned as a duty For since God will be justified with a free obedience and there is an obedience of understanding as well as of will and affection it is of great concernment as to be willing to believe whatever God says so also to enquire diligently whether the will of God be so as is pretended Even our acts of understanding are acts of choice and therefore it is commanded as a duty to search the Scriptures to try the spirits whether they be of God or no of our selves to be able to judge what is right to try all things and to retain that which is best For he that resolves not to consider resolves not to be carefull whether he have truth or no and therefore hath an affection indifferent to truth or falshood which is all one as if he did chuse amiss and since when things are truly propounded and made reasonable and intelligible we cannot but assent and then it is no thanks to us we have no way to give our wills to God in matters of belief but by our industry in searching it and examining the grounds upon which the propounders build their dictates And the not doing it is oftentimes a cause that God gives a man over 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into a reprobate and undiscerning mind and understanding 5. And this very thing though men will not understand it is the perpetuall practice of all men in the world that can give a reasonable account of their Faith The very Catholick Church itself is rationabilis ubique diffusa saith Optatus reasonable as well as diffused every-where For take the Proselytes of the Church of Rome even in their greatest submission of understanding they seem to themselves to follow their Reason most of all For if you tell them Scripture and Tradition are their Rules to follow they will believe you when they know a reason for it and if they take you upon your word they have a reason for that too either they believe you a learned man or a good man or that you can have no ends upon them or something that is of an equal height to fit their understandings If you tell them they must believe the Church you must tell them why they are bound to it and if you quote Scripture to prove it you must give them leave to judge whether the words alledged speak your sense or no and therefore to dissent if they say no such thing And although all men are not wise and proceed discreetly yet all make their choice some way or other He that chuses to please his fancy takes his choice as much as he that chuses prudently And no man speaks more unreasonably then he that denies to men the use of their Reason in choice of their Religion For that I may by the way remove the common prejudice Reason and Authority are not things incompetent or repugnant especially when the Authority is infallible and supreme for there is no greater Reason in the world then to believe such an Authority But then we must consider whether every Authority that pretends to be such is so indeed And therefore Deus dixit ergò hoc verum est is the greatest Demonstration in the world for things of this nature But it is not so in humane Dictates and yet Reason and humane Authority are not enemies For it is a good argument for us to follow such an Opinion because it is made sacred by the Authority of Councils and Ecclesiasticall Tradition and sometimes it is the best reason we have in a Question and then it is to be strictly followed but there may also be at other times a reason greater then it that speaks against it and then the Authority must not carry it But then the difference is not between Reason and Authority but between this Reason and that which is greater for Authority is a very good reason and is to prevail unless a stronger comes and disarms it but then it must give place So that in this Question by Reason I do not mean a distinct Topick but a transcendent that runs through all Topicks for Reason like Logick is instrument of all things else and when Revelation and Philosophie and publick Experience and all other grounds of probability or demonstration have supplied us with matter then Reason does but make use of them that is in plain terms there being so many ways of arguing so many Sects such differing interests such variety of Authority so many pretences and so many false beliefs it concerns every wise man to consider which is the best Argument which Proposition relies upon the truest grounds And if this were not his onely way why do men dispute and urge Arguments why do they cite Councils and Fathers why do they alledge Scripture and Tradition and all this on all sides and to contrary purposes If we must judge then we must use our Reason if we must not judge why do they produce evidence Let them leave disputing and decree Propositions magisterially but then we may chuse whether we will believe them or no or if they say we must believe them they must prove it and tell us why And all these disputes concerning Tradition Councils Fathers c. are not Arguments against or besides Reason but contestations and pretences to the best Arguments and the most certain satisfaction of our Reason But then all these coming into question submit themselves to Reason that is to be judged by humane understanding upon the best grounds and information it can receive So that Scripture Tradition Councils and Fathers are the evidence in a question but Reason is the Judge that is we being the persons that are to be perswaded we must see that we be perswaded reasonably and it is unreasonable to assent to a lesser evidence when a greater and clearer is propounded But of that every man for himself is to take cognizance if he be able to judge if he be not he is not bound under the tie of necessity to know any thing of it that that is necessary shall be certainly conveyed to him God that best can will certainly take care for that for if he does not it becomes to be not necessary or if it should still remain necessary and he damned for not knowing it and yet to know it be not in his power then who can help it there can be no farther care in this business In other things there being no absolute and prime necessity we are
family for it is said of the Ruler at Capernaum that he believed and all his house Now you may also suppose that in his house were little babes that is likely enough and you may suppose that they did believe too before they could understand but that 's not so likely and then the argument from baptizing of Stephen's houshold may be allowed just as probable But this is unman-like to build upon such slight airy conjectures 25. But Tradition by all means must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical that Infants were baptized But at this we are not much moved for we who rely upon the written Word of God as sufficient to establish all true Religion do not value the Allegation of Traditions And however the world goes none of the Reformed Churches can pretend this Argument against this Opinion because they who reject Tradition when 't is against them must not pretend it at all for them But if we should allow the Topick to be good yet how will it be verified For so far as it can yet appear it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen for from him Austin had it For as for the testimony pretended out of Justin Martyr it is to no purpose because the book from whence the words are cited is not Justin's who was before Origen and yet he cites Origen Irenaeus But who please may see it sufficiently condemned by Sixtus Senensis Biblioth Sanct. l. 4. verbo Justinus And as for the â—â—stimony of Origen we know nothing of it for every Heretick interessed person did interpolate all his Works so much that we cannot discern which are his which not Now a Tradition Apostolical if it be not consigned with a fuller testimony then of one person whom all after Ages have condemned of many errours will obtain so little reputation amongst those who know that things have upon greater Authority pretended to derive from the Apostles and yet falsely that it will be a great Argument that he is â—redulous weak that shall be determined by so weak probation in matters of so great concernment And the truth of the business is as there was no command of Scripture to oblige children to the susception of it so the necessity of Paedo-baptism was not determined in the Church till in the eighth Age after Christ but in the year 418. in the Milevitan Council a Provincial of Africa there was a Canon made for Paedo-baptism never till then I grant it was practised in Africa before that time they or some of them thought well of it though that be no Argument for us to think so yet none of them did ever before pretend it to be necessary none to have been a precept of the Gospel S. Austin was the first that ever preached it to be absolutely necessary and it was in his heat anger against Pelagius who had warmed chased him so in that question that it made him innovate in other Doctrines possibly of more concernment then this And although this was practised anciently in Africa yet that it was without an opinion of necessity and not often there nor at all in other places we have the testimony of the learned Paedo-baptist Ludovicus Vives who in his Annotations upon Saint Austin De Civit. Dei l. 1. c. 27. affirms neminem nisi adultum antiquitus solere baptizari 26. But besides that the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical we have very good evidence from Antiquity that it was the opinion of the Primitive Church that Infants ought not to be baptized and this is clear in the sixth Canon of the Council of Nâ—ocaesarea The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sense is this A woman with child may be baptized when she please for her Baptism concerns not the child The reason of the connexion of the parts of that Canon is in the following words Because every one in that confession is to give a demonstration of his own choice and election Meaning plainly that if the Baptism of the mother did also pass upon the child it were not fit for a pregnant woman to receive Baptism because in that Sacrament there being a confession of Faith which confession supposes understanding and free choice it is not reasonable the child should be consigned with such a mysterie since it cannot doe any act of choice or understanding And to this purpose are the words of Balsamon speaking of this Decree and of Infants unborn not to be baptized he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The unborn babe is not to be baptized because he neither is come to light nor can he make choice of the confession that is of the Articles to be confessed in Divine baptism To the same sense are the words of Zonaras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Embryo or unborn babe does then need Baptism when he can chuse The Canon speaks reason and it intimates a practice which was absolutely universal in the Church of interrogating the Catechumens concerning the Articles of Creed Which is one Argument that either they did not admit Infants to Baptism or that they did prevaricate egregiously in asking questions of them who themselves knew were not capable of giving answer But the former was the more probable according to the testimony of Walafridus Stabo Notandum deinde primis temporibus illis solummodo Baptismi gratiam dari solitam qui corporis mentisâ—integritate jam ad hoc pervenerunt ut scire intelligere possent quid emolumenti in Baptismo consequendum quid confitendum atque credendum quid postremò renatis in Christo esset servandum It is to be noted that in those first times the grace of Baptism was wont to be given to those onely who by their integrity of mind and body were arrived to this that they could know and understand what profit was to be had by Baptism what was to be confessed and believ'd in Baptism and what is the duty of them who are born again in Christ. 27. But to supply their incapacity by the answer of a Godfather is but the same unreasonableness acted with a worse circumstance and there is no sensible account can be given of it For that which some imperfectly murmure concerning stipulations civil performed by Tutors in the name of their Pupils is an absolute vanity For what if by positive constitution of the Romans such solennites of Law are required in all stipulations and by indulgence are permitted in the case of a notable benefit accruing to Minors must God be tied and Christian Religion transact her mysteries by proportion and compliance with the Law of the Romans I know God might if he would have appointed Godfathers to give answer in behalf of the Children and to be Fide jussors for them but we cannot find any Authority or ground that he hath and if he had then it is to be supposed he would have given them commission to
Disciples But he told it to the Jews and yet it does not follow that they should all be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire but it is meant onely that that glorious effect should be to them a sign of Christ's eminency above him they should see from him a Baptism greater then that of John And that it must be meant of that miraculous descent of the Holy Spirit in Pentecost and not of any secret gift or private immission appears because the Baptist offered it as a sign and testimony of the prelation and greatness of Christ above him which could not be proved to them by any secret operation which cometh not by observation but by a great and miraculous mission such as was that in Pentecost So that hence to argue that we may as well conclude that Infants must also pass through the fire as through the water is a false conclusion inferred from no premisses because this being onely a Prophecy and inferring no duty could neither concern men or children to any of the purposes of their Argument For Christ never said Vnless ye be baptized with fire and the Spirit ye shall not enter into the Kingdome of heaven but of water and the Spirit he did say it therefore though they must pass through the water yet no smell of fire must pass upon them But there are yet two things by which they offer to escape The one is that in these words Baptism by water is not meant at all but Baptism by the Spirit onely because S. Peter having said that Baptism saves us he addes by way of explication not the washing of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God plainly saying that it is not water but the Spirit To this I reply that when water is taken exclusively to the Spirit it is very true that it is not water that cleanses the Soul and the cleansing of the body cannot save us but who-ever urges the necessity of Baptism urges it but as a necessary Sacrament or Instrument to convey or consign the Spirit and this they might with a little observation have learned there being nothing more usual in discourse then to deny the effect to the instrument when it is compared with the principle and yet not intend to deny to it an instrumental efficiency It is not the pen that writes well but the hand and S. Paul said It is not I but the grace of God and yet it was gratia Dei mecum that is the principal and the less principal together So S. Peter It is not water but the Spirit or which may come to one and the same not the washing the filth of the flesh but purifying the conscience that saves us and yet neither one nor the other are absolutely excluded but the effect which is denied to the instrument is attributed to the principal cause But however this does no more concern Infants then men of age for they are not saved by the washing the body but by the answer of a good conscience by the Spirit of holiness and sanctification that is water alone does not doe it unless the Spirit move upon the water But that water also is in the ministery and is not to be excluded from its portion of the work appears by the words of the Apostle The like figure whereunto even Baptism saves us c. that is Baptism even as it is a figure saves us in some sense of other by way of ministery and instrumental efficiency by conjunction and consolidation with the other but the ceremony the figure the Rite and external ministery must be in or else his words will in no sense be true and could be made true by no interpretation because the Spirit may be the thing figured but can never be a figure The other little 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is that these words were spoken before Baptism was ordained and therefore could not concern Baptism much less prove the necessity of baptizing Infants I answer that so are the sayings of the Prophets long before the coming of Christ and yet concerned his coming most certainly Secondly They were not spoken before the institution of Baptism for the Disciples of Christ did baptize more then the Baptist ever in his life-time they were indeed spoken before the commission was of baptizing all nations or taking the Gentiles into the Church but not before Christ made Disciples and his Apostles baptized them among the Jews And it was so known a thing that great Prophets and the Fathers of an Institution did baptize Disciples that our Blessed Saviour upbraided Nicodemus for his ignorance of that particular and his not understanding words spoken in the proportion and imitation of custome so known among them But then that this Argument which presses so much may be attempted in all the parts of it like Souldiers fighting against Curiassiers that try all the joynts of their armour so doe these to this For they object in the same number that the exclusive negative of Nisi quis does not include Infants but onely persons capable for say they this no more infers a necessity of Infants Baptism then the parallel words of Christ Nisi comâ—deritis unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you infer a necessity to give them the holy Communion c. With this Argument men use to make a great noise in many Questions but in this it will signifie but little First Indeed to one of the Roman Communion it will cause some disorder in this Question both because they think it unlawfull to give the holy Communion to Infants and yet that these words are meant of the holy Communion and if we thought so too I do not doubt but we should communicate them with the same opinion of necessity as did the Primitive Church But to the thing itself I grant that the expression is equal and infers an equal necessity in their respective cases and therefore it is as necessary to eat the flesh of the Son of man and to drink his bloud as to be baptized but then it is to be added that eating and drinking are metaphors and allusions us'd onely upon occasion of Manna which was then spoken of and which occasioned the whole discourse but the thing itself is nothing but that Christ should be received for the life of our Souls as bread and drink is for the life of our bodies Now because there are many ways of receiving Christ there are so many ways of obeying this precept but that some way or other it be obeyed is as necessary as that we be baptized Here onely it is declared to be necessary that Christ be received that we derive our life and our spiritual and eternall being from him now this can concern Infants and does infer an ordinary necessity of their Baptism for in Baptism they are united to Christ and Christ to them in Baptism they receive the beginnings of a new life
the Lord taketh them up and so it is in this particular what is wanting to them by the neglect of others God will supply by his own graces and immediate dispensation But if Baptism be made necessary to all then it ought to be procured for those who cannot procure it for themselves just as meat and drink and physick and education And it is in this as it is in blessing little babes cannot ask it but their needs require it and therefore as by their friends they were brought to Christ to have it so they must without their asking minister it to them who yet are bound to seek it as soon as they can The precept bindes them both in their several periods Ad 31. But their next great strength consists in this Dilemma If Baptism does no good there needs no contention about it if it does then either by the opus operatum of the Sacrament or by the dispositions of the suscipient If the former that 's worse then Popery if the latter then Infants cannot receive it because they cannot dispose themselves to its reception I answer that it works its effect neither by the Ceremony alone nor yet by that and the dispositions together but by the grace of God working as he please seconding his own Ordinance and yet Infants are rightly disposed for the receiving the blessings and effects of Baptism For the understanding of which we are to observe that God's graces are so free that they are given to us upon the accounts of his own goodness onely and for the reception of them we are tied to no other predispositions but that we do not hinder them For what worthiness can there be in any man to receive the first grace before grace there can be nothing good in us and therefore before the first grace there is nothing that can deserve it because before the first grace there is no grace and consequently no worthiness But the dispositions which are required in men of reason is nothing but to remove the hinderances of God's grace to take off the contrarieties to the good Spirit of God Now because in Infants there is nothing that can resist God's Spirit nothing that can hinder him nothing that can grieve him they have that simplicity and nakedness that passivity and negative disposition or non-hinderances to which all that men can doe in disposing themselves are but approaches and similitudes and therefore Infants can receive all that they need all that can doe them benefit And although there are some effects of the Holy Spirit which require natural capacities to be their foundation yet those are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or powers of working but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the inheritance and the title to the Promises require nothing on our part but that we can receive them that we put no hinderance to them for that is the direct meaning of our Blessed Saviour He that doth not receive the kingdome of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein that is without that nakedness and freedome from obstruction and impediment none shall enter Upon the account of this Truth all that long harangue that pursues this Dilemma in other words to the same purposes will quickly come to nothing For Baptism is not a mere Ceremony but assisted by the grace of the Lord Jesus the communication of the Holy Spirit and yet it requires a duty on our part when we are capable of duty and need it but is enabled to produce its effect without any positive disposition even by the negative of children by their not putting a bar to the Holy Spirit of God that God may be glorified and may be all in all Two particulars more are considerable in their Argument The first is a Syllogism made up out of the words of S. Paul All that are baptized into Christ have put on Christ. The Minor proposition is with a little straining some other words of S. Paul thus But they that put on Christ or the new man must be formed in righteousness and holiness of truth for so the Apostle Put ye on the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness But Infants cannot put on Christ to any such purposes and therefore cannot be baptized into Christ. I answer that to put on Christ is to become like unto him and we put him on in all ways by which we resemble him The little babes of Bethlehem were like unto Christ when it was given to them to die for him who died for them and us We are like unto him when we have put on his robe of righteousness when we are invested with the wedding garment when we submit to his will and to his doctrine when we are adopted to his inheritance when we are innocent and when we are washed and when we are buried with him in Baptism The expression is a metaphor and cannot be confined to one particular signification but if it could yet the Apostle does not say that all who in any sense put on the new man are actually holy and righteous neither does he say that by the new man is meant Christ for that also is another metaphor and it means a new manner of living When Christ is opposed to Adam Christ is called the new man but when the new man is opposed to the old coversation then by the new man Christ is not meant and so it is in this place it signifies to become a new man and it is an exhortation to those who had lived wickedly now to live holily and according to the intentions of Christianity But to take two metaphors from two several books and to concentre them into one signification and to make them up into one Syllogism is fallacia quatuor terminorum they prove nothing but the craft of the men or the weakness of the cause For the words to the Ephesians were spoken to them who already had been baptized who had before that in some sense put on Christ but yet he calls upon them to put on the new man therefore this is something else and it means that they should verifie what they had undertaken in Baptism which also can concern children but is seasonable to urge it to them as S. Paul does to the Ephesians after their Baptism But yet after all let the argument press as far as it is intended yet Infants even in the sense of the Apostle do put on the new man which after God is created in righteousness for so are they they are a new creation they are born again they are efformed after the image of Christ by the designation and adoption of the Holy Spirit but as they cannot doe acts of reason and yet are created in a reasonable nature so they are anew created in righteousness even before they can doe acts spiritual that is they are designati sanctitatis as Tertullian's expression is they are in the second birth as in the first instructed
and not Man first by Baptism and then by Confirmation first by Water and then by the Spirit The Primitive Church had this Notion so fully amongst them that the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions attributed to S. Clement who was S. Paul's Scholar affirms That a man is made a perfect Christian meaning Ritually and Sacramentally and by all exterior solemnity by the Water of Baptism and Confirmation of the Bishop and from these words of Christ now alledged derives the use and institution of the Rite of Confirmation The same sence of these words is given to us by S. Cyprian who intending to prove the insufficiency of one without the other says Tunc enim plenè Sanctificari esse Dei filii possunt si Sacramento utroque nascantur cùm scriptum sit Nisi quis natus fuerit ex aqua Spiritu non potest intrare in regnum Dei Then they may be fully Sanctified and become the Sons of God if they be born with both the Sacraments or Rites for it is written Vnless a man be born of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God The same also is the Commentary of Eusebius Emissenus and S. Austin tells That although some understand these words only of Baptism and others of the Spirit only viz. in Confirmation yet others and certainly much better understand utrumque Sacramentum both the Mysteries of Confirmation as well as Baptism Amalarius Fortunatus brings this very Text to reprove them that neglect the Episcopal Imposition of Hands Concerning them who by negligence lose the Bishop's presence and receive not the Imposition of his Hands it is to be considered lest in justice they be condemned in which they exercise Justice negligently because they ought to make haste to the Imposition of Hands because Christ said Vnless a man be born again of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God And as he said this so also he said Vnless your Righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven To this I foresee two Objections may be made First That Christ did not institute Confirmation in this place because Confirmation being for the gift of the Holy Ghost who was to come upon none of the Apostles till Jesus was glorified these words seem too early for the consigning an Effect that was to be so long after and a Rite that could not be practised till many intermedial events should happen So said the Evangelist The Holy Ghost was come upon none of them because Jesus was not yet glorified intimating that this great Effect was to be in after-time and it is not likely that the Ceremony should be ordained before the Effect it self was ordered and provided for that the Solemnity should be appointed before provisions were made for the Mystery and that the outward which was wholly for the inward should be instituted before the inward and principal had its abode amongst us To this I answer First That it is no unusual thing for Christ gave the Sacrament of his Body before his Body was given the Memorial of his Death was instituted before his Death 2. Confirmation might here as well be instituted as Baptism and by the same reason that the Church from these words concludes the necessity of one she may also infer the designation of the other for the effect of Baptism was at that time no more produced than that of Confirmation Christ had not yet purchased to himself a Church he had not wrought remission of sins to all that believe on him the Death of Christ was not yet passed into which Death the Christian Church was to be Baptized 3. These words are so an institution of Confirmation as the sixth Chapter of S. John is of the blessed Eucharist It was designativa not ordinativa it was in design not in present command here it was preached but not reducible to practice till its proper season 4. It was like the words of Christ to S. Peter When thou art converted confirm thy Brethren Here the command was given but that Confirmation of his Brethren was to be performed in a time relative to a succeeding accident 5. It is certain that long before the event and Grace was given Christ did speak of the Spirit of Confirmation that Spirit which was to descend in Pentecost which all they were to receive who should believe on him which whosoever did receive out of his Belly should flow Rivers of Living Waters as is to be read in that place of S. John now quoted 6. This predesignation of the Holy Spirit of Confirmation was presently followed by some little antepast and donariola or little givings of the Spirit for our Blessed Saviour gave the Holy Ghost three several times First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obscurely and by intimation and secret vertue then when he sent them to heal the sick and anoint them with Oil in the Name of the Lord. Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more expresly and signally after the Resurrection when he took his leave of them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost And this was to give them a power of ministring Remission of sins and therefore related to Baptism and the ministeries of Repentance But Thirdly he gave it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more perfectly and this was the Spirit of Confirmation for he was not at all until now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says the Text The Holy Ghost was not yet So almost all the Greek Copies Printed and Manuscript and so S. Chrysostom Athanasius Cyril Ammonius in the Catena of the Greeks Leontius Theophylact Euthymius and all the Greek Fathers read it so S. Hierom and S. Austin among the Latines and some Latin Translations read it Our Translations read it The Holy Ghost was not yet given was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in them as some few Greek Copies read it but the meaning is alike Confirmation was not yet actual the Holy Spirit viz. of Confirmation was not yet come upon the Church but it follows not but he was long before promised designed and appointed spoken of and declared * The first of these Collations had the Ceremony of Chrism or Anointing joyned with it which the Church in process of time transferred into her use and ministery yet it is the last only that Christ passed into an Ordinance for ever it is this only which is the Sacramental consummation of our Regeneration in Christ for in this the Holy Spirit is not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 present by his power but present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Gregory Nazianzen expresses it to dwell with us to converse with us and to abide for ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so S. Paul describes this Spirit of Confirmation the Spirit which he hath poured forth upon us richly or plentifully that is in great measures and to the full consummation of the
invalidity of their first pretended Baptism or their not using at all Confirmation in their Heretical Conventicles But the repetition of Confirmation is expresly forbidden by the Council of Tarracon cap. 6. and by P. Gregory the Second and sanctum Chrisma collatum altaris honor propter consecrationem quae per Episcopos tantùm exercenda conferenda sunt evelli non queunt said the Fathers in a Council at Toledo Confirmation and Holy Orders which are to be given by Bishops alone can never be annulled and therefore they can never be repeated And this relies upon those severe words of S. Paul having spoken of the foundation of the Doctrine of Baptisms and Laying on of hands he says if they fall away they can never be renewed that is the ministery of Baptism and Confirmation can never be repeated To Christians that sin after these ministrations there is only left a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expergiscimini that they arise from slumber and stir up the Graces of the Holy Ghost Every man ought to be careful that he do not grieve the Holy Spirit but if he does yet let him not quench him for that is a desperate case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Spirit is the great conservative of the new Life only keep the Keeper take caâ—e that the Spirit of God do not depart from you for the great Ministery of the Spirit is but once for as Baptism is so is Confirmation I end this Discourse with a plain exhortation out of S. Ambrose upon those words of S. Paul He that confirmeth us with you in Christ is God Repete quia accepisti signaculum spirituale spiritum sapientiae intellectûs spiritum consilii atque virtutis spiritum cognitionis atque pietatis spiritum sancti timoris serva quod accepisti Signavit te Deus Pater confirmavit te Christus Dominus Remember that thou who hast been Confirmed hast receiv'd the Spiritual Signature the spirit of wisdom and understanding the spirit of counsel and strength the spirit of knowledge and godliness the spirit of holy fear keep what thou hast receiv'd The Father hath sealâ—d thee and Christ thy Lord hath confirmed thee by his Divine Spirit and he will never depart from thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless by evil works we estrange him from us The same advice is given by Prudentius Cultor Dei memento Te fontis lavacri Rorem subiisse Sanctum Et Chrismate innotatum Remember how great things ye have received and what God hath done for you ye are of his Flock and his Militia ye are now to sight his battels and therefore to put on his armor and to implore his auxiliaries and to make use of his strengths and always to be on his side against all his and all our Enemies But he that desires Grace must not despise to make use of all the instruments of Grace For though God communicates his invisible Spirit to you yet that he is pleas'd to do it by visible instruments is more than he needs but not more than we do need And therefore since God descends to our infirmities let us carefully and lovingly address our selves to his Ordinances that as we receive Remission of sins by the washing of Water and the Body and Blood of Christ by the ministery of consecrated Symbols so we may receive the Holy Ghost sub Ducibus Christianae militiae by the Prayer and Imposition of the Bishops hands whom our Lord Jesus hath separated to this Ministery For if you corroborate your self by Baptism they are the words of S. Gregory Nazianzen and then take heed for the future by the most excellent and firmest aids consigning your mind and body with the Vnction from above viz. in the Holy Rite of Confirmation with the Holy Ghost as the Children of Israel did with the aspersion on the door-posts in the night of the death of the first-born of Egypt what evil shall happen to you meaning that no evil can invade you and what aid shall you get If you sit down you shall be without fear and if you rest your sleep shall be sweet unto you But if when ye have received the Holy Spirit you live not according to his Divine principles you will lose him again that is you will lose all the blessing though the impression does still remain till ye turn quite Apostates in pessimis hominibus manebit licèt ad judicium saith S. Austin the Holy Ghost will remain either as a testimony of your Vnthankfulness unto condemnation or else as a seal of Grace and an earnest or your inheritance of eternal Glory THE END A DISCOURSE OF The NATVRE OFFICES and MEASVRES OF FRIENDSHIP WITH Rules of conducting it In a Letter to the most Ingenious and Excellent M rs KATHARINE PHILIPS Madam THE wise Ben-Sirach advised that we should not consult with a Woman concerning her of whom she is jealous neither with a coward in matters of War nor with a Merchant concerning Exchange and some other instances he gives of interested persons to whom he would not have us hearken in any matter of Counsel For where-ever the interest is secular or vicious there the â—iass is not on the side of Truth or Reason because these are seldom serv'd by profit and low regards But to consult with a Friend in the matters of Friendship is like consulting with a Spiritual person in Religion they who understand the secrets of Religion or the Interior beauties of Friendship are the fittest to give answers in all inquiries concerning the respective subjects because Reason and Experience are on the side of interest and that which in Friendship is most pleasing and most useful is also most reasonable and most true and a Friends fairest interest is the best Measure of the Conducting Friendships and therefore you who are so eminent in Friendships could also have given the best answer to your own inquiries and you could have trusted your own Reason because it is not only greatly instructed by the direct notices of things but also by great experience in the matter of which you now inquire But because I will not use any thing that shall look like an excuse I will rather give you such an account which you can easily reprove than by declining your commands seem more safe in my prudence than open and communicative in my Friendship to you You first inquire How far a Dear and a perfect Friendship is authoriz'd by the principles of Christianity To this I answer That the word Friendship in the sence we commonly mean by it is not so much as named in the New Testament and our Religion takes no notice of it You think it strange but read on before you spend so much as the beginning of a passion or a wonder upon it There is mention of Friendship with the world and it is said to be enmity with God but the word is no where else named or to any other purpose in
well as the institution it self 201 § 5. Scotus affirmed that the truth of the Eucharist may be saved without Transubstantiation 234 § 11. Some have been poisoned by receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist 249 ss 11. The wine will inebriate after consecration therefore it is not bloud 249 § 11. The Marcossians Valentinians and Marcionites though they denied Christ's having a body yet used the Eucharistical Elements 256 § 12. The Council of Trent binds all its subjects to give to the Sacrament of the Altar the same worship which they give to the true God 267 § 13. To worship the Host is Idolatry 268 § 13. They that worship the Host are many times according to their own doctrine in danger of Idolatry 268 269 § 13. Lewis IX pawned the Host to the Sultan of Egypt upon which they bear it to this day in their Escutcheons 270 § 13. The Primitive Church did excommunicate those that did not receive the Eucharist in both kinds Pref. to Diss. pag. 5. The Council of Constance decreed the half Communion with a non obstante to our Lord's institution 302 c. 1. § 6. Authorities to shew that the half Communion was not in use in the Primitive times 303 c. 1. § 6. Of their worshipping the Host 467. Of Communion in one kind onely 469 470. The word Celebrate when spoken of the Eucharist means the action of the people as well as the Priest 530. The Church of God gave the Chalice to the people for above a thousand years 531. The Roman Churche's consecrating a Wafer is a mere innovation 531 532. The Priest's pardon anciently was nothing but to admit the penitent to the Eucharist 839 n. 54. Of the change that is made in us by it 28. b. The Apostles were confirmed after 30. b. Eusebius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. and 524. Excommunication Neither the Church nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sometimes it was put to signifie Ecclesiastical repentance 830 n. 34. Exorcisms Their exorcisms have been so bad that the Inquisitors have been fain to put them down 333 § 10. The manner of their casting out Devils by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. They give Exorcists distinct ordination 336. Exorcism in the Primitive Church signified nothing but Catechizing 30. b. Ezekiel Chap. 18. v. 3. explained 726 n. 61. F. Faith THE folly of that assertion Credo quia impossibile est when applied to Transubstantiation 231 § 11. To make new Articles of faith that are not in Scripture as the Papists do is condemned by the suffrage of the Fathers Pref. to Diss. pag. 4 5. The Church of Rome adopts uncertain and trifling propositions into their faith 462. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no arricle of faith in Saint Augustine's time 506. What faith is and wherein it consists 941 n. 1. New Articles cannot by the Church be decreed 945 n. 12. Faith is not an act of the understanding onely 949 n. 9. By what circumstances faith becomes moral 950 n. 9. The Romanists keep not faith with hereticks 341. Instances of doctrines that are held by some Romanists to be de fide by others to be not de fide 398. What makes a point to be de fide 399. What it is to be an Article of faith 437. Some things are necessary to be believed that are not articles of faith 437. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new articles as necessary to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Pope hath not power to make Articles of faith 446 447. Upon what motives most men imbrace the faith 460. The faith of unlearned men in the Roman Church 461. Fasting It is one of the best Penances 860 n. 114. Father How God punisheth the Father's sin upon the Children 725. God never imputes the Father's sin to the Children so as to inflict eternal punishment but onely temporal 725 n. 56. This God doth onely in punishments of the greatest crimes 725 n. 59. and not often 726 n. 60. but before the Gospel was published 726 n. 62. Fathers When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of some Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. No man but J. S. affirms that the Fathers are infallible 372 373 374. The Fathers stile some hereticks that are not 376. Of what authority the opinion of the Fathers is with some Romanists 376 377. They complained of the dismal troubles in the Church that arose upon enlarging Creeds 441. They reproved pilgrimages 293 496. The Primitive Fathers that practised prayer for the dead thought not of Purgatory 501. They made prayer for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers 512. A Reply to that Answer of the Romanists That the writings of the Fathers do forbid nothing else but picturing the Divine Essence 550 554. In what sense the ancient Fathers taught the doctrine of original sin 761 n. 22. How the Fathers were divided in the question of the beatifick vision of souls before the day of Judgement 1007. The practice of Rome now is against the doctrine of S. Augustine and 217 Bishops and all their Successours for a whole age together in the question of Appeals to Rome 1008. One Father for them the Papists value more then twenty against them in that case how much they despise them 1008. Gross mistakes taught by several Fathers ibid. The writings of the Fathers adulterated of old and by modern practices 1010. particularly by the Indices Expurgatorii 1011. Fear To leave a sin out of fear is not sinful but may be accepted 785 n. 37. Figure Ambiguous and figurative words may be allowed in a Testament humane or Divine 210 § 6. A certain Athenian's enigmatical Testament ibid. The Lamb is said to be the Passeover of which deliverance it was onely the commemorative sign 211 § 6. How many figurative terms there are in the words of institution 211 212 § 6. When the figurative sense is to be chosen in Scripture 213 § 6. Flesh. The law of the flesh in man 781 n. 31. The contention between it and the Conscience no sign of Regeneration 782 n. 32. How to know which prevails in the contention 782 n. 5. Forgiving Forgiving injuries considered as a part or fruit of Repentance 849 n. 83. Free-will How the necessity of Grace is consistent with this doctrine 754 n. 15. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose it 874. The folly of that assertion We are free to sin but not to good 874. Liberty of action in natural things is better but in moral things it is a weakness 874. G. Galatians CHap. 5.15
caused those to be burned for hereticks that made pictures of the Trinity 555. The Primitive Church did confirm hereticks reconciled 32. b. The nature and differences of Heresie 947 948. and 964 965 seq Of the heresie of the Encratites Gnosticks 949 n. 8. Of such heresies as are named such in the N. Testament 948 n. 6. It is not an errour of the understanding onely 949 n. 8. How an errour becomes evil in genere morum 950 n. 9. A mere errour of the understanding is no sin 950 n. 10. What addition it is that makes errour become heresie 950 n. 10. No man is an heretick against his will 951 n. 12. The title of Heresie was sometimes given upon very slight grounds 953 n. 17. Of the ancient Catalogues of Heresie 955 n. 18 19. Of rebaptizing Hereticks 957 958 968. Ambition the cause of many heresies 1022. Hosea Chapter 6. v. 7. explained 711. I. Saint James HE was called an Apostle because he was a Bishop 48 § 4. Saint James Bishop of Jerusalem was not one of the 12 Apostles 48 § 4. Epist. of Saint James Chap. 2. v. 10. Whosoever shall keep the whole and yet offends in one point is guilty of all explained 649 n. 55. Chap. 1.13 explained 737 n. 90. Idolatry To worship the Host is Idolatry 268 § 13. They that worship the Host are many times according to their own doctrine in danger of Idolatry 268 269 § 13. The distinction of material and formal Idolatry hath no place in practical Divinity 269 § 13. The worshipping of Images is Idolatry 337 § 12. and not to be excused by that distinction of terminativè relativè 338 c. 2. § 12. The devices that the Romanists use to excuse the Idolatry of their worshipping Images 547. The niceties that every Idiot must trouble his conscience with that worships Images the Popish way 548. Jeremiah Chap. 2. v. 13. digged for them cisterns explained 332. Saint Jerome Concerning his testimony taken out of his Comment upon Titus usually brought against the sole authority of Bishops 77 § 21. per tot and ss 44. and pag. 144. The Bishop for his acts of Judicature was responsible to none but God 145 146 § 44. The Presbyter's assistance to the Bishop was never necessary and when practised was voluntary on the Bishop's part 147 § 44. Ignorance Where it self is no sin the action flowing from it is no sin neither 795 n. 64. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning of it 199 § 4. Images The worship of Images was brought in by the first Hereticks 306. Saint Cyril and Epiphanius against the worship of Images 306. The Council of Eliberis and the Synod of Francford were against the worship of Images 306. The doctrine of Image-worship was not held for Catholick either in France or Germany for almost 1000 years after Christ 307. The worship of them is such Idolatry as no distinction of theirs can excuse 337 338 c. 2. § 12. Heathens could not worship an Image terminativè 338. Of the testimony of the Eliberitan Council against Images 538. Of the second Council of Nice and that of Francford and the Capitular of Charles the Great 540 541. The testimony of Epiphanius out of his Epistle translated by Saint Hierome against the worship of Images 536. The worship of them came from a very infamous original viz. Simon Magus 445. The Jews never objected the worship of Images against the Primitive Christians 546. In that part of the Thalmud written about A. D. 200. the Jews object nothing against the Christians for worshipping Images but in that which was written about A. D. 1000. or 1100. they do 546. The devices that the Romanists use to excuse the Idolatry of Image-worship 547. The niceties that every Idiot must trouble his conscience with that worships Images the Popish way 548. When Image-worship came first into England 550. What gave the Iconoclasticks the first occasion 1017. Impossible Of God's power to doe things impossible 233 § 11. Why should not the many impossibilities be a bar against the belief of the Trinity as well as Transubstantiation 242 § 11. The Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation is impossible and implies contradictions 301. Arguments to prove that perfect obedience to God's Law is impossible 576 577. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 809 n. 39. A limited signification of it 839 n. 39. Imputare What the word signifies 886. Of our justification by imputation of Christ's righteousness 901 902. The sense and meaning of Imputation in the matter of imputed righteousness by Christ 903. Index Expurgatorius The Caution the King of Spain gave in the first making that kind of Index 289 c. 1. § 1. Indulgences When they were first set up 291. Some of their own Writers confess that there is no direct warrant for them neither in the Fathers nor Scripture 291. There is nothing of Indulgences in Pet. Lombard nor in all Gratian 291. The meaning of their Article of Indulgences 291 c. 1. § 3. Mayron and Durandus disputed against Indulgences 291. Cardinal Cajetan's opinion of Indulgences 291 c. 1. § 3. The mischief of them 292. At first they could not agree what the penitent or purchaser got by it 292 293. Indulgences imployed to raise a portion for the Pope's Niece 292. Of their Indulgences 318 316 c. 2. § 3. What is the use of so many hundred thousand years of pardon 317. The many difficulties about them 319. They make not the multitude of Masses less necessary 320 c. 2. § 4. Good life undermin'd by their doctrine of Indulgences 320. Venial sins hinder the fruit of Indulgences 320. Pope Adrian taught that a man out of the state of Grace may merit for another in the state of Grace 320 321. When the doctrine of Indulgences was first brought into the Church 495. Villains have been hired by Indulgences to commit murther 497. A strange unintelligible Indulgence given by two Popes about the beginning of the Council of Trent 498. Some considerations upon the practice of Indulgences 498. Infallibility Of the Pope's Infallibility 995 sect 7. per tot Neither Irenaeus nor Saint Cyprian believed the Pope's Infallibility 1001. Concerning that text Matth. 16.18 Tu es Petrus super hanc petram 996 997. Of that text Matth. 16.19 tibi dabo claves 996. Instances of such actions of divers ancient Popes as were not very consistent with an opinion of the infallible chair 997. Perron's phansy upon Tu es Petrus turned against himself 998. Saint Paul was Bishop of the Church of Gentiles at Rome how then comes the Infallibility by right of succession from Saint Peter 999. Divers Popes were Hereticks and impious as Zepherinus 1003. Pope Innocent III. argued ridiculously when he was in Cathedra 1003. Pope Honorius was condemned in the sixth General Synod and that condemnation ratified in the eighth ibid. When Sixtus IV. appointed a festival for the immaculate Conception and offices for it the Dominicans would not receive it and it is not at this day
explained 777 n. 26. Chap. 8.7 explained 781 n. 31. Chap. 7.22 23. explained 781 n. 31. Chap. 5.10 explained 818 n. 77. Rosary What it is 328. S. Sabbath THE observation of the Lord's day relieth not upon Tradition 428. The Jewish and Christian Sabbath were for many years in the Christian Church kept together 428. Sacraments The Sacraments as the Romanists teach do not onely convey Grace but supply the defect of it 337. The Romanists cannot agree about the definition of a Sacrament 404. They impute greater virtue to their Sacramentals then to the Sacraments themselves 429. The Church of God used of old to deny the Sacrament to no dying penitent that desired it 696. Of Confession to a Priest in preparation to the Sacrament 857. Saints The Romanists teach and practise the Invocation of Saints 329 332. and that with the same confidence and in the same style as they do to God ibid. They do not onely pray to Saints to pray for them but they relie upon their merits 330. They have a Saint for every malady 330. It is held ominous for a Pope to canonize a Saint 333 c. 2. § 9. Of the Invocation of Saints 467. Salvation The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to Salvation 436. What Articles the Scripture proposeth as necessary to Salvation 436 437. The Church of Rome imposeth Articles of her own devising as necessary to Salvation 461. Of the Salvation of unbaptized Infants that are born of Christian parents 471. 1. Book of Samuel Chap. 2. v. 25. explained 812 813 n. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it meaneth in the style of the New Testament 724 n. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 767 781. Satisfaction One may according to the Roman doctrine satisfie for another man's sin 322 c. 2. § 6. The use of that word in Classical Authours 844 845 n. 72. It was the same with Confession 845 n. 72. What it signified in the sense of the Ancients 844 and 832 n. 34. The Ancients did not believe Satisfaction simply necessary to the procuring pardon from God 847. Schism Photius was the first Authour of the Schism between the Greek and Latin Church 109 § 33. What Schism is 149 § 46. The whole stress of Religion Schismaticks commonly place in their own distinguishing Article 459. Scripture To make new Articles of Faith that are not in Scripture as the Papists do is condemned by the suffrage of the Fathers Pref. to Diss. pag. 4 5. Christ and his Apostles made use of Scripture for arguments and not Tradition 353. An answer to that Objection Scripture proves not it self to be God's Word 353. An answer to that Objection Tradition is the best Argument to prove the Scripture to be the Word of God therefore it is a better Principle 354. The Romanists hold the Scripture for no Infallible Rule 381. Whether the Scripture be a sufficient Rule 405 406 407. In what case the Scripture can give testimony concerning it self 406. Scripture is more credible then the Church 407. To believe that the Scripture contains not all things necessary to Salvation is a fountain of most Errours and Heresies 409. The doctrine of the Scripture's sufficiency proved by Tradition 410. Some of the Fathers by Tradition mean Scripture 410 411 412. Things necessary to Salvation are in the Scripture easie and plain 418. Scripture is the best Interpreter of Scripture 419. Tradition is necessary because Scripture could not be conveyed to us without it 424. The Questions that arose in the Nicene Council were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. The Romanists by their doctrine of Tradition give great advantage to the Socinians 425. That the Doctrine of the Trinity relieth not upon Tradition but Scripture 425. That the Doctrine of Infant-baptism relieth not upon Tradition onely but Scripture 425 426. The validity of the Baptism of Hereticks is not to be proved by Tradition without Scripture 426 427. The procession of the Holy Ghost may be proved by Scripture without Tradition 427 428. What Articles the Scripture proposeth as necessary to Salvation 436 437. The Romanists teach that the Pope can make new Articles of Faith and a new Scripture 450. The Authority of the Church of Rome as they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. When in the Question between the Church and the Scripture they distinguish between Authority quoad nos and in se it salves not the difficulty 451. The Romanists reckon the Decretal Epistles of Popes among the Holy Scriptures 451. Eckius his pitiful Argument to prove the Authority of the Church to be above the Scriptures ibid. Variety of Readings in it 967. n. 4. As much difference in expounding it 967 n. 5. Of the several ways taken to expound it 971 972 973. Of expounding it by Analogy of Faith 973 974 n. 4. Saint Basil's testimony for Scripture against Tradition which Perron endeavours to elude vindicated 982 983. Nothing of Auricular Confession in Scripture 479. The manner of it is to include the Consequents in the Antecedent 679 n. 52. Secular Whether this Power can give Prohibitions against the Ecclesiastical 122 § 36. It was not unlawful for Bishops to take Secular Imployment 157 § 49. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after Secular imployments 157 § 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends 158 § 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it in gradu impedimenti 159 § 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold cares as secular imployment 160 § 49. Christian Emperours allowed Appeals in secular affairs from secular Tribunals to that of the Bishop 160 § 49. Saint Ambrose was Bishop and Prefect of Milain at the same time 161 § 49. Saint Austin's condition was somewhat like at Hippo 161. § 49. Bishops used in the Primitive Church to be Embassadours for their Princes 161 § 49. The Bishop or his Clerks might doe any office of Piety though of secular burthen 161 § 49. If a Secular Prince give a safe conduct the Romanists teach it binds not the Bishops that are under him 341. Sense If the doctrine of Transubstantiation be true then the truth of Christian Religion that relies upon evidence of sense is questionable 223 224 § 10. The Papists Answer to that Argument and our Reply 224 § 10. Bellarmine's Answer and our Reply upon it 226 § 10. If the testimony of our Senses be not in fit circumstances to be relied on the Catholicks could not have confuted the Valentinians and Marcionites 227 § 10. The Touch the most certain of the Senses ibid. Signat That word as also Consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifies Baptismal Unction 110 § 33. Vid. 20. b. Sin Venial sins hinder the fruit of Indulgences 320. The Papists teach the habit of the sin is not a distinct evil from the act of it 322. Of the distinction of sins mortal and venial 329 c.
be the best way of proving the immortality of the Soul 357. Aristotle believed the Soul of man to be divine and not of the body 718 n. 41. There is no difference between the inferiour and superiour faculties of the Soul 728 n. 68. and 825 n. 19. The frailty of man's Soul 734 n. 83. Spirit Whether the ordinary gifts of the Spirit be immediate infusions of faculties and abilities or an improvement of our natural powers and means 4 n. 15. ad 34. How the Holy Spirit did inspire the Apostles and Writers of the New Testament as to the very words 8 n. 32. What in the sense of Scripture is praying with the Spirit 9 n. 37. and 47. What a Spirit is as to nature 236 § 11. How a Spirit is in place 236 § 11. The Holy Spirit perfects our Redemption 1. b. The Spirit of God 1. b. The frailty of the spirit of man 735 n. 83. The rule of the Spirit in us 782. To have received the Spirit is not an inseparable propriety of the regenerate 786. What the Spirit of God doth in us 787. The regenerate man hath not onely received the Spirit of God but is wholly led by him 788. Sublapsarians Their Doctrine in five Propositions 872. It is not much better then the Supralapsarian 873. Against this way 886 n. 8. Substance What a Substance is 236 § 11. Aquinas says that the Body of Christ is in the Elements not after the manner of a Body but a Substance this Notion considered 238 § 11. Succession Of the succession of Bishops 402 403. Supererogation How it and Christian perfection differ 590 591 n. 16 17. What it is 786. Superlative This is usually exprest by a synonymal word by an Hebraism 909. Supralapsarians Their Doctrine 871. T. Tears A Man by them must not judge of his Repentance nor by any other one way of expression 850 n. 86. Temptation Every temptation to sin if overcome increases not the reward 661 n. 7. No man is tempted of God 737 n. 86. The violence of a temptation doth not in the whole excuse sin 743. Testament In a humane or Divine Testament figurative words may be admitted 210 § 6. A certain Athenian's aenigmatical Testament 210 § 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What they were 835 n. 44. Theodoret. His words about Transubstantiation considered 264 265 § 12. Theology The power of Reason in matters of Theology 230 231 § 11. It findeth a medium between Vertue and Vice 673. Thief on the Cross. Why his Repentance was accepted 681 n. 65. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What that word means 637 n 10. 1. Epistle to Timothy Chap. 4. v. 8. explained 860 n. 114. Chap. 5. v. 22. explained 808 n. 31. Chap. 5.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 152 § 48. and 166 § 51. Chap. 3.15 16. the pillar and ground of truth explained 386 387. Chap. 1.5 6. explained 949 n. 8. 2. Epistle to Timothy Chap. 2. v. 4. explained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 162 § 49. Epistle to Titus Chap. 5.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 780 n. 30. Tradition Christ and his Apostles made use of Scripture for arguments not Tradition 353. An answer to that Objection Tradition is the best argument to prove the Scripture to be the word of God therefore it is a better Principle then that 354. Oral Tradition was useful to convey matter of fact onely not Doctrines 354 355 358. Oral Tradition a very uncertain means to convey down a Doctrine 356. The Romanists have no Tradition to assure them the Epistle to the Hebrews is Canonical 361. The doctrine of the Scriptures sufficiency proved by Tradition 410. Some of the Fathers by Tradition mean Scripture 410 411 412. What Tradition is and what the word meaneth 420 § 3. When and in what case Tradition is an useful Topick 421. It is necessary in the Church because the Scripture could not be conveyed to us without it 424. The Questions that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. The Tradition urged by the Ancients was not oral 425. The Romanists by their doctrine of Tradition gave great advantage to the Socinians 425. The doctrine of the Trinity relieth not upon Tradition but Scripture 425. That the doctrine of Infant-baptism relieth not upon Tradition onely but Scripture too 425 426. The validity of Baptism by Hereticks is not to be proved by Tradition without Scripture 426 427. The Procession of the Holy Ghost may be proved by Scripture without Tradition 427 428. The observation of the Lord's Day relieth not upon Tradition 428. Instances wherein oral Tradition has failed in conveyance 431. Saint Augustine's Rule to try Apostolical Traditions 432. Some Traditions said to be Apostolical have proceeded from the testimony of one man alone and he none of them 432. Of the means of proving a Tradition to be Apostolical 433. Of Vincentius Lirinensis his Rule to discern Apostolical Tradition 434. In the Question about the immaculate Conception Tradition is equally pretended on both sides 435. Traditions now held that are contrary to the Primitive Traditions 453 454. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for Auricular Confession 490. Of what use Tradition is in expounding Scripture 976. It is no sufficient medium to end Controversies 976 sect 5. per tot It was pretended by the Arians and divers other hereticks as well as the Orthodox 977 n. 3. The report of Tradition was uncertain even in the Ages Apostolical 978 n. 4. Tradition could not be made use of to determine the Controversie about Easter between the Churches of the East and West because both sides pretended it 979 n. 7. What Tradition it was the Fathers used to appeal to 979 n. 8. Transubstantiation The arts by which the Romanists have managed this Article Ep. Ded. to Real Pres. 174. It is acknowledged by the Romanists that this doctrine cannot be proved out of Scripture 187 § 2. and 298. How many figurative terms there are in the words of Institution 211 212 § 6. If this doctrine be true then the truth of Christian Religion which relieth upon the evidence of Sense is questionable 223 224 § 10. The Papists Answer to that Argument with our Reply 224 § 10. Bellarmine's Answer and a Reply upon it 226 § 10. If the testimony of our Senses in fit circumstances be not to be relied on the Catholicks could not have confuted the Valentinians and Marcionites 227 § 10. Irenaeus mentions an Impostour that essayed to counterfeit Transubstantiation long before the Roman Church decreed it 228 § 10. The miraculous Apparitions that are brought to prove Transubstantiation are proved to be false by their own doctrine 229 § 10. Picus Mirandula offered to maintain in Rome this Thesis Paneitas potest suppositare corpus Domini 230 § 11. How many ways the words of Christ Hoc est corpus meum may be verified without Transubstantiation 230 231 § 11. The folly of that assertion Credo quia impossibile est when applied to